JUDGMENT T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner challenges the award Ext. P4 on the ground that it was passed well beyond the period of 30 days prescribed by S.22(5) of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974. The said provision states that an Agricultural Tribunal to which a dispute is referred shall complete its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as practicable after the completion of the proceedings but not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the reference submit its award to the District Collector. In this case the award had been passed long after the period of 30 days of receipt of the reference by the Tribunal. However, that is not a ground for nullifying the award. It is true that expedition should be the watch-word of the Tribunal in matters concerning agricultural labour. But delay in passing the award is not sufficient to nullify the award itself, otherwise it will lead to very serious consequences. It has to be noted that the parties affected namely the workers are in very many cases competing teams of workers who are likely to be numerous. They have necessarily to be notified about the reference with dates of posting, opportunity to file their statements, adducing evidence and so on. It may not be possible to go through the entire process within the period of 30 days, Perhaps even the notices may not be served in time as I have noted in certain cases. To set an absolute rigid time limit of 30 days for passing the award on pain of its being rendered a nullity otherwise, will lead to unintended hardship. Particularly it has to be noted that there is no bar to another reference being made in case the first reference did not fructify in an award within 30 days. The reasonable view to take in such circumstances will be that the limit of 30 days is not inflexible. It is a period within which the Tribunal should attempt to make the award to the extern possible, but failure to adhere to the time limit will not necessarily invalidate the award. 2. This was the view taken in Padmanabhan Nair v. Thankappan. 1980 KLT 39 and in Rajagopalan v. KSRTU, Mannarghat 1981 KLT 543 . I respectfully agree with the observations contained in these decisions. 3. 2. This was the view taken in Padmanabhan Nair v. Thankappan. 1980 KLT 39 and in Rajagopalan v. KSRTU, Mannarghat 1981 KLT 543 . I respectfully agree with the observations contained in these decisions. 3. Counsel for the petitioner however referred to the decision in Muthukutty v. Assia, 1978 KLT 603 , of a Bench of this court. He points out that the Bench had taken the view that non passing of the award within 30 days was a serious irregularity if not an illegality which requires sufficient and adequate explanation. Counsel submits that the ratio of this decision is that an award rendered beyond 30 days is null and Void. I am unable to read any such implication in the decision. In that case the Division Bench had set aside the award and remitted the matter to the Agricultural Tribunal for being dealt with afresh in accordance with law. The Bench did not finally decide the matter and left it to the Agricultural Tribunal itself to take note of this objection and pass suitable orders. The decision strictly in point, are the two earlier ones to which I have made reference and with which I agree. 4. The petitioner raised a further contention that he holds only less than one hectare of land and therefore as per the provisions of S.42, the Act is not applicable to him. The Tribunal has dealt with the matter elaborately on various points examining the contesting parties as well as their witnesses. But the point that the Act was not applicable does not appear to have been pointedly raised before it. I do not find any reference thereto in the order of the Tribunal. Petitioner has also no case that such a point was raised and argued before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal had omitted to deal with it. Even the original petition does not refer to the non applicability of the Act on the ground of exemption provided by S.42. I do not. therefore think this is a proper case in which this question ought to be allowed to be raised for the first time in this court. Both contentions raised by the petitioner fail. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.