Judgment ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the b Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Jammu holding that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") would be applicable only when the application to set aside the ex parte award made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short "the Act") is preferred within thirty days from the date of publication of award. 2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice. The services of Respondent 1 were terminated by order dated 11-7-1989. The same was challenged by Respondent 1 by filing an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu. The Registrar vide his order dated 20-9-1989 dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, Respondent 1 preferred a revision before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (in short "the Tribunal"). The said revision application was d dismissed by order dated 31-5-1990. 3. A dispute was raised under the Act in the year 1991. An ex parte award was passed by order dated 27-2-1992. According to the appellant, it came to know of the award when it received a letter dated 19-3-1994 from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu. Immediately thereafter an application was filed on 31-3-1994 to set aside the ex parte award. The Labour Court issued notice on the application and stayed execution of the award on 4-4-1994. Respondent 1 filed a writ petition before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which was numbered as SWP No. 680 of 1994. By judgment dated 2-8-1994, a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal (SW) No. 166 of 1995 was filed against the judgment dated 2-8-1994. When it was placed before a Division Bench, separate orders were passed on 5-5-1999 as these was difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges as to whether the Labour Court tribunal became functus officio after passing of the award and whether there was scope of filing an application for setting aside the ex parte award. When it was placed before a Division Bench, separate orders were passed on 5-5-1999 as these was difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges as to whether the Labour Court tribunal became functus officio after passing of the award and whether there was scope of filing an application for setting aside the ex parte award. As the two Hon'ble Judges differed on these issues, the matter was referred to a third Hon'ble Judge who agreed with the view taken by one of the Hon'ble Judges to the effect that principles applicable for setting aside the ex parte proceedings can be applied provided the application is filed within thirty days from the date of publication of the award. It was further held that after that period is over, the Labour Court Tribunal became functus officio. The majority view of the High Court is questioned in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court's view is erroneous. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the view expressed by the majority. 4. An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Rules framed under the Act may provide for applicability of the provisions of CPC. Once the provisions of CPC are made applicable to the industrial adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 thereof would be attracted. But unlike an ordinary civil court, the Industrial Tribunals and the Labour Courts have limited jurisdiction in that behalf. An award made by an Industrial Court becomes enforceable under Section 17-A of the Act on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Once the• award becomes enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal and/or the Labour Court becomes functus officio. This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal! held that the Tribunal does not become functus officio provided an application for setting aside the award is filed within thirty days of publication of the award having regard to the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act and Rules 22 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 stating: (SCC at pp.425-26, para 14) "14. The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central Government alone could set it aside, does not commend to us. The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central Government alone could set it aside, does not commend to us. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue ti11 the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A. Under Section 17-A of the Act, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date •of its publication under Section 17. The proceedings with regard to a reference under Section 10 of the Act are, therefore, not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. That stage is not reached ti11 the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A. In the instant case, the Tribunal made the ex parte award on 9-12-1976. That award was published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated 2512-1976. The application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed by Respondent 3, acting on behalf of Respondents 5 to 17 on 19-1-1977 i.e. before the expiry of 30 days of its publication and was, therefore, rightly entertained by the Tribunal" 5. The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award, but having regard to the provision contained in Section 17-A of the Act, an application therefore must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the publication thereof. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication, and only up to that date, it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the High Court found as of fact that the application for setting aside the award was filed before the Labour Court after one month a of the publication of the award. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the High Court found as of fact that the application for setting aside the award was filed before the Labour Court after one month a of the publication of the award. In view of this Court's decision in Grindlays Bank easel such jurisdiction could be exercised by the Labour Court within a limited time-frame, namely, within thirty days from the date of publication of the award. Once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17-A of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to setting aside of an award passed by it. In other b words, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette, the same having become enforceable, the Labour Court would become functus officio. 6. The decision in Grindlays Bank case has been followed in Satnam Verma v. Union of India and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE. 7. The above position was recently highlighted in Sang ham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj. 8. Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy.