Judgment :- This writ petition is filed, challenging the endorsement of the second respondent, the Central Government Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal dated 29.06.2001, by which the second respondent has refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte award passed in I.D.No.257 of 2001 on 23.02.2001. The reason given by the second respondent for rejecting the application is that the award passed by the Labour Court has been published in the G.O., as per the Notification of the Government dated 12.03.2001. Few facts relevant for the decision in this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner Union raised a dispute about the termination of employment of one Sarvajeet Goundu on 29.04.1998 when he was employed as a Cook in the first respondent management. The Government of India has referred the same on 110. 1999 for adjudication to the Tamil Nadu Industrial Tribunal and later transferred to the second respondent and was taken on file as I.D.No.257 of 2001. Notice was sent to both the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 09.02.2001. Since both the parties were not present on that date, fresh notice was ordered, posting the case to 23.02.2001. Due to the non-appearance of the petitioner union, the said I.D.No.257 of 2001 was dismissed exparte on 23.02.2001. It is to set aside the said exparte award dismissing the I.D., the petitioner union filed an application on 29.06.2001 and on the same day, the said application was returned as not maintainable on the basis that the exparte award dismissing the I.D. was published in the gazette on 12.03.2001. 2.As per the provisions of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an award becomes enforceable on expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any Notification by the Government that the award shall not be enforceable after the expiry of thirty days for any reason. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was any Notification by the Government that the award shall not be enforceable after the expiry of thirty days for any reason. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 17A, which reads as follows: "17-A Commencement of the award: (1) An award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under Section 17: Provided that- (a) if the appropriate Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a Labour Court or Tribunal in relation to an industrial dispute to which it is a party; or (b) if the Central Government is of opinion, in any case where the award has been given by a National Tribunal, that it will be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national economy or social justice to give effect to the whole or any part of the award, the appropriate Government, or as the case may be, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the award shall not become enforceable on the expiry of the said period of thirty days. (2) Where any declaration has been made in relation to an award under the proviso to sub-section (1), the appropriate Government or the Central Government may, within ninety days from the date of publication of the award under Section 17, make an order rejecting or modifying the award, and shall, on the first available opportunity, lay the award together with a copy of the order before the Legislature of the State, if the order has been made by a State Government, or before Parliament, if the order has been made by the Central Government. (3) Where any award as rejected or modified by an order made under sub-section (2) is laid before the Legislature of a State or before Parliament, such award shall become enforceable on the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which it is so laid; and where no order under sub-section (2) is made in pursuance of a declaration under the proviso to sub-section (1), the award shall become enforceable on the expiry of the period of ninety days referred to in sub-section (2). (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) regarding the enforceability of an award, the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but where no date is so specified, it shall come into operation on the date when the award becomes enforceable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as the case may be." 3.Therefore, the point to be considered in this case is that when admittedly the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was published as per Section 17 of the I.D. Act on 12.03.2001 and the petitioner union has filed an application long after the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award i.e. on 29.06.2001, whether such application is maintainable. 4.A bare reading of Section 17 A of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly shows that after the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication, the award becomes enforceable. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has held that in cases where sufficient reason is pointed out explaining the reason for the delay, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal has powers to entertain such application even beyond the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Spl. Officer, Salem Co-op. PTG. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court (1998 (1) LLN 651). That was the case wherein the exparte award was passed some time in 1991 while the application to set aside the exparte award was filed long afterwards i.e. on 22.07.1992 and there was a delay of 204 days in filing such application and to substantiate the reason for the delay, some evidence was let in. Relying upon Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958, this Court in the above said case, has held that even after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of exparte order, an application can be entertained if sufficient cause is shown. This Court has issued necessary directions to receive the application to set aside the exparte award, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Satnam Verma Vs. Union of India (1985(2)LLN 55) = 1984 supp. SCC 712. This Court has issued necessary directions to receive the application to set aside the exparte award, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Satnam Verma Vs. Union of India (1985(2)LLN 55) = 1984 supp. SCC 712. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent by placing reliance on the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangham Tape Company Vs. Hans Raj ( (2005) 9 SCC 331 ) would contend that after the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of award, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal become functus officio and therefore, there was no question of filing any application to set aside the order. He would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when admittedly an application was filed beyond thirty days from the date of publication, the Tribunal has no power to entertain such application at all. 6.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the first respondent. 7.A reference to the Supreme court judgment relied upon by this Court as stated above and reported in 1984 Supplement SCC 712 (cited supra) would show that it was also the case where after the award passed exparte and the same was published, the Labour Court has rejected the application to set aside the exparte award on the ground that it has no jurisdiction, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The fact in that case as narrated by the Supreme Court that the hearing of reference before the Labour Court was fixed on 23.02.1982. However, the communication was sent to the appellant therein stating that the case was to be heard on 26.02.1982 and in fact he appeared on 26.02.1982 and found that the matter was dismissed exparte on 23.02.1982 itself and on the very same day viz., 26.02.1982, he moved an application for setting aside the exparte award. While construing such position, based on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ((1980) supp. While construing such position, based on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. ((1980) supp. SCC 420), the Supreme Court has held that the Labour Court which has passed an award has a right to set aside the same since in that case, a mistake has crept in, in informing the appellant about the date of hearing as 26.02.1982 while the case was actually posted on 23.02.1982. Therefore, reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein there was no mistake about the date of hearing and the exparte award was admittedly passed on 23.02.2001 which was published on 12.03.2001 and the application to set aside the exparte award was filed much after three months namely on 29.06.2001. It is in this regard relevant to consider the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, rendered in (2005) 9 SCC 331 (cited supra). That was a case where the Labour Court passed an award on 05.02.1996 and subsequently, an application was filed to set aside the same and ultimately the exparte award was set aside on 11.05.2000. When that order was challenged, contending that the exparte award after lapse of thirty days from the date of publication cannot be set aside by the same Court since the Labour Court becomes functus officio, ultimately, High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside the order of the Labour Court. 8.It was while dealing with the appeal by the affected party, the Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rules made there under. For the reason that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable in respect of industrial adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is attracted but while applying the said provision, the Labour Court has limited jurisdiction as per Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which contemplates that the award comes into operation after the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication and when once the award is published, the Industrial Tribunal or Labour court becomes functus officio. The Supreme Court after analysing the earlier judgments on this point including the case in 1980 Supp. SCC 420 (cited supra) and also considering the subsequent judgment in 1984 Supp. SCC 712 (cited supra) has held that the Labour Court will have jurisdiction to set aside the exparte award within the time frame viz., thirty days from the date of publication of the award as contemplated under Section 17A of the Act and it does not retain any jurisdiction after the said date. The Supreme Court laid down the law as follows: "In view of this Courts decision in Grindlays Bank (supra), 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 17A 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 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." 9.Even in the judgment in ((1980) supp. SCC 420) (cited supra), what was laid down by the Supreme Court was that the Tribunal does not become functus officio provided the application has been filed to set aside the exparte award within the period of thirty days from the date of publication of the award, by referring to Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the Industrial Disputes (Central Rules), 1957. In view of the above legal position, I am of the considered view that the order of the second respondent Labour Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, is perfectly in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.