Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1494 (PNJ)

Rishi Pal v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

2008-09-01

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur setting aside the ex parte and dated 18.8 2003 passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 1.0(1 )(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred dispute to the LabourCourt. The petitioner claimed that he was employed by the respondent in the month of January 1988 as Beldar on regular and permanent basis and he performed his duty at various places i.e. Gurdaspur, Dinanagar and other nurseries. The petitioner continued till July, 2001 when his service were terminated without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation. As no body put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, they were proceeded ex parte and thereafter the ex parte award was passed on 18.8.2003. 3. The respondent employer thereafter moved an application on 7.10.2003 for setting aside the ex parte award. It was claimed that on the date fixed respondent was on emergent official work and was out of headquarter and could not attend the court on the date fixed. It was claimed that the absence of the petitioner was beyond his control due to the official work and it was pleaded that absence was neither willful nor intentional. The application was contested by the petitioner on the plea that the said application was not maintainable as the same was belated. The plea of estopple was also raised. It was claimed that the award stands published in the Government it Gazette dated 12.12.2003, the same has become enforceable and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the ward after expiry of 30 days from the date of publication. The plea of the petitioner was rejected by observing that no orders have been placed on record showing that the award stands published. On issue No. 2, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that as the employee due to official activities could not appear in the Court his absence was duly justified and accordingly set aside ex parte award. The petitioner was ordered to be compensated witn costs, which were assessed at Rs. 1000/-. 4. On issue No. 2, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that as the employee due to official activities could not appear in the Court his absence was duly justified and accordingly set aside ex parte award. The petitioner was ordered to be compensated witn costs, which were assessed at Rs. 1000/-. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that on expiry of 30 days front the publication of award the labour Court had become functus officio, therefore, award passed in favour of the petitioner could not have been set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance on Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran vs. Kulwant Kumar and another, 2005(3) RSJ 186 and the judgment of this court in the case of the Warring Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Limited vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1986(1) SLR215. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran vs. Kulwant Kumar and another (supra) has been pleased to lay down that the Labour Court becomes functus officio after a period of 30 day of the award being published in the official gazette and, therefore, it was not open to the Labour Court to have entertained an application after period of two years from the date of publication of award. 7. In the case of the Warring Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Limited vs. The State of Punjab and others (supra) this Court as pleased to laid down that Labour Court becomes functus officio on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the ex parte award and, therefore, there was no justification to entertain any application for setting aside the ex parte award after the said period. 8. The above referred authorities have no connection with the matter in dispute in the present case. The application for setting aside ex parte award was filed on 7.10.2003 whereas the award was published on 12.12.2003 and thus, the application was moved even prior to publication of award and, therefore, it could not be said that the Labour Court had become functus officio to entertain the application moved by the respondent em ployee. 9. The application for setting aside ex parte award was filed on 7.10.2003 whereas the award was published on 12.12.2003 and thus, the application was moved even prior to publication of award and, therefore, it could not be said that the Labour Court had become functus officio to entertain the application moved by the respondent em ployee. 9. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Labour Court does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction which may call for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed.