JUDGMENT : The petitioner claims to be a temporary Lathe Operator under the 1st respondent management. According to him, the 1st respondent management had illegally denied employment to him on 31.12.1999 and the trade union concerned (R-2) of which the petitioner was a member, had espoused the said grievance of the petitioner and had raised an industrial dispute and the State Government had issued G.O(Rt.)No. 87/2002, whereby the industrial dispute raised by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the petitioner workman was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, for adjudicating the issue as to whether the action of the management in having denied employment to the petitioner herein is justifiable or not and if not, what relief he is entitled to, etc. The industrial dispute was duly registered as I.D. No. 10/2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. According to the petitioner, the further proceedings in the industrial dispute were never properly intimated to him by the 2nd respondent union in spite of attempts in that regard made by the petitioner and in January 2011, the petitioner had come to know that the said I.D.No.10/2002 was closed as per Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 on the basis of the submission made by the 2nd respondent trade union that the matter has been settled out of court between the management and the said union in respect of the abovesaid individual grievance of the petitioner workman. It is the case of the petitioner that though Ext.P-4 award is seen to have been passed on 30.7.2003, the petitioner came to know of it only in January 2011 and thereupon, he had taken steps to secure a copy of Ext.P-4 proceedings and it is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) on 23.2011 with the following prayers : “(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-4 Award passed by the 3rd respondent. (B) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent to take up I.D. No. 10/2002 afresh and adjudicate the dispute and (C) issue such other writ, order or directing as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. Paulson C. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Heard Sri. Paulson C. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P. Benny P. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent management and Sri. C. Arun Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Union. The Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, who has been formally arrayed as respondent No.3, is not a necessary party to this proceedings. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri. D. Thomas, the father of the petitioner, was a driver of the 1st respondent management and before the retirement of his father, the petitioner was employed as a temporary Lathe Operator by the 1st respondent management and the petitioner had so entered service in the year 1995. The petitioner's case is that he was illegally denied employment by the 1st respondent management on 31.12.1999, effective from 1.1.2000. The said grievance relating to the alleged illegal denial of employment could have been individually raised by the petitioner as an industrial dispute or could have been espoused by a trade union at the instance of the worker concerned. That the petitioner had taken up the matter through the 2nd respondent union of which he was a member and the matter was referred as industrial dispute as per the above referred G.O(Rt.)No.87/2000, which resulted in the registration of I.D. No. 10/2002 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father (Sri. D. Thomas) had retired from the service of the 1st respondent management on 31.7.2000 and he was directed by the management to vacate the quarters allotted to him. As the petitioner was residing with his father in the said quarters, the petitioner sought permission from the management to continue to reside in the said quarters as the petitioner was employed as a temporary worker of the 1st respondent management. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that though he had made repeated efforts to know the outcome of the industrial dispute, the trade union representatives were frequently informing the petitioner that the matter is still pending. That it was only in January 2011 that the petitioner came to know that the said industrial dispute was closed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, on the basis of an alleged settlement arrived at between the management and the 2nd respondent Union. That it was only in January 2011 that the petitioner came to know that the said industrial dispute was closed by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, on the basis of an alleged settlement arrived at between the management and the 2nd respondent Union. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said settlement was arrived at fraudulently between the management and the trade union, without the consent of the petitioner, etc. The petitioner would thus contend that this Court may interfere with the impugned Ext.P-4 and may remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for further consideration of the merits of the industrial dispute after impleading the petitioner as an additional respondent in the said I.D. and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, who is the affected person, etc. 5. The said prayer made by the petitioner is seriously resisted by the 1st respondent management. It is mainly contended by the management in the counter affidavit that Ext.P-4 was duly preceded by Anx.R-1(a) settlement arrived at between the management and the trade union concerned, as early as on 21.7.2003, which led to the rendering of the impugned Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003. Anx. R-1 (a) settlement dated 21.7.2003, reads as follows : “Parties : Representing Management: (Management of Periavurrai Estate. Munnar P.O. Representing Workman: (Sri. Yesudas PF No.5878 (Ex.Temporary Worker Periavurral Estate). 1. Mr. N. Arun Maharaj, Group Manager, Periavurrai Estate, Munnar P.O., PIN 685 612. 2. Mr. P. Madhavan, N.U.P.S. Union., Munnar P.O., PIN 685 612. 3. Sri. Yesudas, P.F.No.5878, Ex.Temporary Worker, Periavurrai Estate, Munnar P.O., PIN 685 612. SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE Sri. Yesudas, P.F.No.5878, temporary worker had raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki alleging denial of employment, which is now pending as I.D.No.10 of 2002. The National Union of Plantation Staff representing Sri. Yesudas, No.5878 approached the management for an amicable settlement of the dispute. Several discussions were held before the parties on this issue and at a final meeting of the parties held on Monday the 21st July 2003, a settlement on the following terms was arrived at. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 1. Sri. Yesudas, P.F.No.5878 will be offered temporary work in the field on Periavurrai Estate, as and when temporary work is available and provided his services are required by the estate. 2. Sri. TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT 1. Sri. Yesudas, P.F.No.5878 will be offered temporary work in the field on Periavurrai Estate, as and when temporary work is available and provided his services are required by the estate. 2. Sri. Yesudas, P.F. No.5878 and N.U.P.S. on his behalf, agree that they will withdraw the Industrial Dispute (I.D.No.10 of 2002) pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki at the next hearing. 3. Sri. Yesudhas and the N.U.P.S. agree that either Sri. Yesudhas or the Union shall not raise any dispute on this issue before any forum in future. Dated, at Periavurrai Estate, this the Monday of 21st July 2003. 1. N. ARUN MAHARAJ, Sd/- 2. P. MADHAVAN, Sd/- 3. YESUDHAS, Sd/-” Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 reads as follows: “AWARD The Government of Kerala, as per G.O(Rt.)No. 87/2002/adjudication to this Tribunal. The issue referred for adjudication is the following “Whether the action of the management in having denied employment to Shri. Yesudas, No.5878 is justifiable or not ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?”. When this industrial dispute was taken up for hearing, the Secretary of the Union submitted that this Industrial dispute was settled out of court. He also made an endorsement to the effect on the reference order. In view of the settlement, no industrial dispute is subsisting between the parties. In the result, an award is passed holding that no industrial dispute is subsisting between the parties.” 6. According to the petitioner, if the contentions of the petitioner workman had been duly considered, then he had even the right to seek all attendant benefits of reinstatement with backwages. That in the instant case, as per Anx.R-1(a) settlement, the workman is only entitled to seek future temporary employment as and when available and that no substantial relief worth the name has been afforded to the petitioner in Anx. R-1 (a) settlement and this itself would fortify the case of the petitioner that Anx.R-1(a) settlement was entered into between the management and the trade union without the consent of the petitioner workman. R-1 (a) settlement and this itself would fortify the case of the petitioner that Anx.R-1(a) settlement was entered into between the management and the trade union without the consent of the petitioner workman. The 1st respondent management would seriously contend that even according to the petitioner, the impugned Ext.P-4 award has been rendered as early as on 30.7.2003 and that the petitioner has not furnished any proper version as to the reasons to show as to how he was totally unaware about Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 for such a long period till January/ February, 2011 and as to the reasons for the delay for institution of the present Writ Petition, which was filed only 23.2.2011 and that the present writ proceedings is liable to be dismissed mainly on the ground of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. Further it is also submitted by the 1st respondent management that the petitioner is also signatory to Anx.R-1 (a) settlement dated 21.7.2003. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein he has submitted that Anx.R-1(a) is a fabricated document and that the said settlement has been unilaterally arrived at between the management and the trade union without the consent of the workman. So substantially the case of the petitioner is that Anx.R-1(a) is a fabricated document and that it has been obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by the 2nd respondent trade union as well as the 1st respondent management and that therefore Anx.R-1(a) settlement and the consequential Ext.P-4 award are a nullity as they are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, etc. 7. The petitioner would also contend that the management had taken steps to evict the petitioner and his family from the quarters which was initially allotted to his father, who was a permanent employee of the 1st respondent management and that the petitioner's father had filed original suit, O.S. No. 173/2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, in which the management was the defendant, seeking permanent injunction against forceful eviction. That the management had filed O.S. No. 202/2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, seeking declaration, eviction and damages for unauthorised occupation, etc. That the management had filed O.S. No. 202/2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, seeking declaration, eviction and damages for unauthorised occupation, etc. That the Munsiff's Court, as per Ext.P-6 judgment dated 30.9.2003 had partly dismissed O.S. No. 202/2001 filed by the management on the ground that the management has an alternative remedy by virtue of the provisions contained in the Plantation Labour Act for agitating the issue of eviction before that authority and hence the relief for eviction was rejected. Ext.P-6 is the judgment dated 30.9.2003 rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam in O.S. No. 202/2001 filed by the management. As per Ext.P-6 judgment, the Munsiff's Court has also debarred the management in approaching the civil court for that remedy in view of the alternative statutory remedy, which was by then availed by the management. As regards the relief for declaration, it was ordered by the Munsiff's Court that the management is the lawful owner of the premises in question, etc. It is also not in dispute that O.S.No.173/2001 filed by the petitioner workman was also dismissed by the civil court. The management had filed Ext.P-7 Appeal Suit, A.S.No.22/2004 to impugn the judgment and decree as per Ext.P-6 in O.S.No.202/2001. Ext.P-8 is the judgment rendered by the District Court in the said A.S., whereby the said appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate court concerned. That earlier management had also approached the Chief Inspector of Plantation by virtue of the provisions contained in the Plantation Labour Act seeking eviction in respect of the abovesaid quarters and the said proceedings has been numbered as EC 5/2001 before the Chief Inspector of Plantation, Kottayam and Ext.P-5 order dated 11.3.2010 was rendered by the said authority in favour of the management granting the order of eviction. According to the petitioner, he had preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority concerned to impugn Ext.P-5 eviction order dated 11.3.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the factum regarding Anx. According to the petitioner, he had preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority concerned to impugn Ext.P-5 eviction order dated 11.3.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that the factum regarding Anx. R-1 (a) settlement dated 21.7.2003 or about the consequential Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 has not been apprised by the management at any stage either before the civil court or before the civil appellate court or before the statutory authorities under the Plantation Labour Act and that the omission on the part of the management to apprise the alleged existence of Anx.R-1 (a) settlement dated 21.7.2003 and Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 before the civil court and the statutory authorities would show that as a matter of fact Anx. R-1 (a) was not in existence and has been fabricated later. 8. Per contra, the 1st respondent management would contend that the factual aspects regarding Anx.R-1 (a) settlement and Ext.P-4 award, which are essentially an industrial dispute between the management and trade union, have no direct connection or relevance as regards the eviction proceedings, which was essentially related to the eviction from the quarters allotted to the petitioner's deceased father, who was a former employee of the company. 9. As noted earlier herein above, the management would contend that no credible or cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner as to what prompted him not to make any bona fide inquiries to know about the outcome of Ext.P-4 industrial dispute proceedings and that if the petitioner had made any bona fide inquiries at least with the office of the Industrial Tribunal concerned to know about the developments in the said industrial dispute proceedings, then it would have been clearly known to him that Ext.P-4 award was rendered as early as on 30.7.2003. That in these circumstances it is contended by the management that the petitioner should be imputed with at least deemed knowledge about Ext.P-4 award inasmuch as it was an industrial dispute, which was espoused through his trade union and therefore, it is only to be held that the petitioner never challenged the legality and correctness of Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 within a reasonable time and the present Writ Petition has been filed only on 23.2.2011, which is about 71/2 years after the issuance of Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 is barred by unexplained delay and laches. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner workman would contend that he was repeatedly making inquiries through the trade union about the outcome of the said industrial dispute, at which point of time, the said union representatives were frequently informing the petitioner that the matter is will pending and that the petitioner was never informed about the correct state of affairs and it was only in January 2011 that the petitioner came to know that Ext.P-4 award was rendered on 30.7.2003 on the basis of a unilateral settlement arrived at between the management and the trade union and without the consent of the workman, etc. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute as to whether or not the petitioner had made bona fide inquiries to know the outcome of Ext.P-4 I.D proceedings and also as to whether or not Anx. R-1 (a) settlement and Ext.P-4 award are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, etc. are all matters, which would require evidence and in these circumstances it may not be right and proper for this Court to adjudicate the crucial factual issues in that regard. If, as a matter of fact the petitioner, could plead and prove that Anx.R-1(a) settlement and Ext.P-4 award are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and has been obtained without his consent, then certainly he can contend that the said proceedings are a nullity inasmuch as it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, etc. But the petitioner would also have to prove the crucial aspect that he discovered the alleged fraud only belatedly and that thereafter he has challenged the same by filing the instant Writ Petition on 23.2.2011 without any further delay, etc. 11. The scope and ambit of the powers of the Labour Court/Industrial Court to set aside an ex-parte award, if sufficient cause is shown, has been enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions as in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others reported in [1980 (Supp) SCC 420] and Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II reported in [ (2001) 10 SCC 534 ]. In Grindlays Bank's case (supra) reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 420, the Apex Court examined some provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act and held that Industrial Disputes Act confers ample power upon the Tribunal and other authorities to devise its own procedure in the interest of justice of the case and this includes all powers which bring about an adjudication of an existing industrial dispute and while the procedure is left to be devised by the Tribunal to suit carrying out its functions under the Act, the powers of the civil court conferred upon it are clearly set out. In Anil Sood's case (supra), reported in (2001) 10 SCC 534 , the Apex Court held that the aspect that the party against whom an award is to be made has to be given due opportunity to defend is a matter of procedure and not that of power in the sense in which the language is adopted in Sec.11 of the Industrial Disputes Act and when matters are referred to the Tribunal or court they have to be decided objectively and the Tribunals/Courts have to exercise their discretion in a judicial manner without arbitrariness by following the general principles of law and rules of natural justice. The power to proceed ex-parte is available under Rule 22 of the Central Rules which also includes the power to inquire whether or not there was sufficient cause for the absence of a party at the hearing, and if there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then if the party is visited with an award without a notice, that is a nullity and therefore the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex-parte award, etc. 12. In Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 331 , it was held by the Apex Court that while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex-parte award but having regard to the provision contained in Sec.17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an application therefore must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the publication thereof and till then, Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and only upto that date, it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. Once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Sec.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 it was held that upon expiry of the 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. It was also held by the Apex Court in Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 331 that in the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank's case (supra) reported in (1980) Supp. SCC 420, that on facts the application to set aside the impugned ex-parte award was filed within the requisite 30 days. 13. So it can be seen that in Sangham Tape Company's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the application for recall of an ex-parte order could be entertained by an Industrial Court/Tribunal/ Labour Court only if such an application is filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date of pronouncement/publication of the award. A contrary view was taken by the Apex Court in the case in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. I.H. Patel & another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 81 . In view of the apparent conflict in the view taken in that regard in the aforecited two reported decisions, later the Apex Court in the case in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 579, had ordered that the said case be referred for consideration of a Larger Bench in order to resolve the abovesaid conflict. 14. However, crucial and relevant aspect is that the petitioner is contending that the impugned Ext.P-4 award issued on the basis of Anx.R-1 (a) settlement is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, if the petitioner can establish those factual allegations, then certainly he can contend that the said impugned proceedings are a nullity inasmuch as it is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. Of course, as already noted herein above, the petitioner also has to establish that he has made his challenge in that regard immediately after coming to know of the commission of the alleged fraud. Of course, as already noted herein above, the petitioner also has to establish that he has made his challenge in that regard immediately after coming to know of the commission of the alleged fraud. Since the petitioner's grounds are mainly based on nullity of the award on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, the abovesaid restrictions, which are applicable for submission of an application before the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal for setting aside its ex parte award, will not apply to the facts of this case. If the petitioner can indeed establish that the impugned award is vitiated by fraud, then it necessarily follows that it is a nullity and therefore, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate on such pleas regarding the alleged commission of fraud in securing the settlement and award, etc. 15. In these circumstances, the petitioner is given the liberty to file appropriate applications before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, which considered I.D.No.10/2002 to advance his contention that Anx.R-1(a) settlement dated 21.7.2003 and Ext.P-4 award dated 30.7.2003 are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and further that, despite due diligence, he could discover the alleged fraud only in January/February 2011, etc. The petitioner may pray in those applications that Ext.P-4 award is liable to be recalled on the ground of alleged fraud and misrepresentation and also that the petitioner may be permitted to be impleaded in the I.D., etc. But the petitioner has to plead and prove the crucial facts that Anx. R-1 (a) settlement and Ext.P-4 award are vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and also that despite due diligence he could discover the alleged fraud only belatedly, etc. The period from filing of the instant Writ Petition on 23.2.2011 upto 6 weeks from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment could be excluded. While filing such applications along with supporting affidavits, the petitioner should ensure that advance copies of the applications are served on the 1st respondent management as well as the 2nd trade union concerned and the applications in that regard should be filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki, within six weeks from the date notified for receiving the certified copy of this judgment. All rival contentions of either side in this regard are fully left to be considered and decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. All rival contentions of either side in this regard are fully left to be considered and decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. It is also made clear that upon receipt of such applications, the 1st respondent management and the trade union should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the Industrial Tribunal on the abovesaid applications and all the parties concerned may be given liberty to adduce evidence in aid of their respective contentions on the abovesaid issues. With these observations and directions, the abovesaid Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.