JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 18.05.2018 (Annex.-7) passed by the Labour Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order/award dated 02.06.2008, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner on a dispute being referred by the appropriate Government was required to file his statement of claim pertaining to termination of his services w.e.f. 14.08.1988. However, after seeking time on four occasions, when the matter was listed before the Labour Court on 02.06.2008, the following order-sheet was drawn:- 3. Pursuant thereto, no dispute award dated 02.06.2008 (Annex.-4) has been passed, which award ultimately got published on 12.03.2009. 4. The present application seeking restoration was filed by the petitioner on 09.07.2017, inter alia, indicating that the claim was withdrawn by the petitioner, on account of assurance given/compromise arrived at between the parties, however, the same was not followed by the employer, and vacillating stands pertaining to the said aspects are being taken and ultimately the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the authority under the Factories and Boilers Act, on account of jurisdiction, were disposed of and, therefore, the petitioner was left with no option but to approach the Labour Court for restoration of the proceedings. 5. Alongwith the application seeking restoration, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking to explain the delay in filing the restoration application. 6. The application was contested by the respondents by filing reply, inter alia, indicating that there was no compromise between the parties and as the statement of claim was not filed on various dates, the same was withdrawn. Further, the averments made seeking to explain the delay in filing the application was also contested. 7. The Labour Court after hearing the parties, came to the following conclusion:- In view of this court 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 any award passed by it. 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 any 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. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court for rejecting the petitioner's application, is not justified, inasmuch as, no reasons have been indicated for rejection of petitioner's application except for a one line determination that the reasons indicated were not sufficient/appropriate. 9. Further submission has been made that the application has been essentially rejected relying on judgment in Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj, (2004) AIR SC 4776, which judgment has been over-ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, (2018) AIR SC 2670. 10. Further submissions have been made seeking to explain that the respondents have been taken vacillating stands and have, deprived the petitioner from getting his dispute adjudicated before the Labour Court and after withdrawal of the dispute, have failed to honour their agreement/compromise and as such even on merits, the petitioner has a good case. 11. Further submissions were made that passing of no dispute award, also is not justified in view of the definition of term 'award' as contained Section 2(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and, therefore also, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Reliance has also been placed on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) AIR SC 1353 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., (2000) AIRSCW 835. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, there is no explanation worth the name for explaining the delay of about 9 years in approaching the court for restoration of the dispute. 14. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, there is no explanation worth the name for explaining the delay of about 9 years in approaching the court for restoration of the dispute. 14. Further submissions have been made that the respondents at no stage, have taken vacillating stands as stand of the respondents with regard to the compromise between the parties is clear that the petitioner on his own accord withdrew the proceedings/made application for not pressing the same before the Labour Court and as such, no case for interference is made out. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 16. A perusal of the entire sequence of events indicates that after dispute was referred by the State Government pertaining to validity of petitioner's termination to the Labour Court, the matter remained pending with the Labour Court for filing of the statement of claim and time was sought for the purpose by the petitioner on 24.08.2007, 08.10.2007, 07.12.2007, 05.03.2008, 22.04.2008 and thereafter on 02.06.2008, again initially the time was granted and the matter was adjourned to 15.07.2008. 17. Whereafter, by way of postscript (PS), it was indicted by the Judge, Labour Court that on behalf of the petitioner, who was already represented by one advocate Mr. K.K. Vyas, filed a fresh Vakalatnama of one advocate Mr. Madho Singh Rathore alongwith the application that the matter has been settled and the petitioner does not want to proceed with the matter. 18. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner filed at page-46 of the paper-book indicates that the Court noticed that the petitioner was blind, however, as would be noticed from the order-sheet, apparently no satisfaction was recorded by the Labour Court pertaining to the fact that the dispute has been settled between the parties. 19. The stand taken by the respondents in reply to the application seeking restoration is quite significant, which reads as under:- 20. The respondent-employer indicated that there was no compromise between the parties and the matter was not settled based on any assurance given in this regard. 21. 19. The stand taken by the respondents in reply to the application seeking restoration is quite significant, which reads as under:- 20. The respondent-employer indicated that there was no compromise between the parties and the matter was not settled based on any assurance given in this regard. 21. As noticed hereinbefore when the petitioner was represented by a counsel, the matter had already been adjourned and then an application alongwith Vakalatnama of a new counsel was filed seeking to indicate that compromise has been entered into between the parties gives a strong indication that something had happened between the parties, resulting in filing of the application alongwith Vakalatnama of a fresh counsel after the matter had initially been adjourned and the plea now sought to be taken by the respondent-employer that no compromise and/or assurance in this regard happened on the date the dispute was settled, does not appear to be correct in the natural course of events. 22. The material, which was produced by the petitioner in relation to the proceedings before the authority under the Factories and Boilers Act, was apparently not examined by the Labour Court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and in a very cursory manner as quoted hereinbefore by a one line observation that the reasons for delay were not sufficient/ appropriate, rejected the application seeking condonation. 23. Further, apparently the Labour Court was overawed by the fact that the application after publication of the award was not maintainable in view of judgment in the case of Sangham Tape Co. (supra) and ultimately, rejected the application relying on the said judgment. 24. The approach of the Court in this regard cannot be countenanced, which should have in view of the glaring circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was a blind person should have dealt with the matter in an appropriate manner. 25. The reasons indicated in the application, by the petitioner were sufficient for condonation of delay in view of the bald denial by the respondent-employer pertaining to any settlement arrived at between the parties/on account of the copious material available on record from the proceedings before the authorities under the Factories and Boilers Act. 26. 25. The reasons indicated in the application, by the petitioner were sufficient for condonation of delay in view of the bald denial by the respondent-employer pertaining to any settlement arrived at between the parties/on account of the copious material available on record from the proceedings before the authorities under the Factories and Boilers Act. 26. So far as the maintainability of the application itself is concerned, the law is now well settled as the Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra), has laid down that merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding and for an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice and award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. 27. In view of the above factual and legal position, the order passed by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. 28. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 18.05.2018 (Annex.-7) passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, is quashed and set aside. 29. The application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application and the restoration application, are allowed. The award dated 02.06.2008 (Annex.-4) passed by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No.159/2007, is set aside. The dispute is restored to its original number to be proceeded in accordance with law. 30. Looking to the fact that the dispute was raised way back in the year 2007, the Labour Court is directed to proceed with the matter most expeditiously and ensure that the matter is decided preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the said authority. 31. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 03.10.2019.