Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.G.Nagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) against the exparte Award made in I.D.No.3 of 2007 dated 15.4.2009. 3. The above writ petition came to be listed by the Office under an erroneous presumption that the above matter will have to go before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in view of the notification issued by the Government of India, notifying all service matters relating to CBSE to be tried by Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. But, however, in respect of awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts, the Central Administrative Tribunal will have no jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in Director, Government of India Vs. General Secretary, Central Government Small Scale Industries Organisation Employees Union and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 630 . 5. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the issue. With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for final hearing. 6. Mr.G.Nagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that they have been unjustly set exparte and they have got a good case to plead before the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the Labour Court after publication of the award will become functus officio, thereafter the power cannot be invoked. Rule 22 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules (Rules in short) provides for the Tribunal to decide a matter exparte, under Rule 24 of the said Rules, Labour Courts have been given power in addition to Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act; power of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in relation to discovery and inspection; grant of adjournments; and reception of evidence on affidavit. In essence, Chapter IX of Schedule I of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the proceeding before the Labour Court. 6. Therefore, the argument of the counsel overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal reported in 1980 Supp SCC 420 after construing the very same rule has held that a conjoint reading of Rules 22 and 24 of the Rules, the Labour Court can entertain the application, notwithstanding the award being published in the gazette. 9. The said view has been reiterated in Anil Sood Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal reported in 1980 Supp SCC 420 after construing the very same rule has held that a conjoint reading of Rules 22 and 24 of the Rules, the Labour Court can entertain the application, notwithstanding the award being published in the gazette. 9. The said view has been reiterated in Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer,Labour Court, reported in 2001(10)SCC 53 and in Radha Krishna Mani Tripathy Vs. L.H.Patel reported in 2009(2) SCC 81 . 10. The entire issue has been considered by this Court in respect of the rules framed by the T.N.State Government in W.P.No.4195 of 2010 dated 2.3.2010 (M.Kumaresan Vs. The Presiding Officerl Labour Court, Vellore & another). Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the exparte Award. It is open to the petitioner to move the very same Tribunal with an appropriate application. If such an application is filed, it is needless to state that the Tribunal shall hear such application and pass orders in accordance with law. 11. Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the second respondent stated that this Court on 19.10.2009 gave a direction to the petitioner-CBSE to pay monthly salary in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated that the said amount has not been paid till date. However, counsel for the petitioner Mr.G. Nagarajan, stated that as against the said order, a writ appeal has been filed being W.A.No.1888 of 2009 and it is pending before the Division Bench. Hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the said request. As and when the writ appeal is disposed of, the second respondent can work out his remedies in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.