ORDER : (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “That the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 28.2.2020 passed by the Presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 03/2017 whereby the said learned court has directed the General Manager, EJ Area, BCCL to make payment of the rest amount of monetary compensation from April 2004 to July 2015 as per the prevailing NCWA within one month.” Arguments of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award was passed in Ref. Case No. 44 of 2008 and was published by central government vide notification dated 20.1.2015 and it became enforceable on and from 20.2.20215 after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the Award. He submits that the Tribunal became functus officio upon expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the Award. However, a petition was filed by the wife of ex-employee which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 03 of 2017 seeking modification of Award. The grievance of the lady was that although there is a direction to grant monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment but the employer (petitioner) had given the monetary compensation from the date of the Award although she was entitled right from the date of death of ex-employee. Such petition was entertained and a direction was passed to make payment of rest of the amount of monetary compensation from April 2004 to July 2015. 4. The learned counsel while assailing the order dated 20.8.2020 containing the aforesaid direction has submitted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition and pass such order once the Award was already published and attained finality. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777 (Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.) and submits that paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment clearly stipulates that once the Award is published, the concerned court becomes functus officio and paragraph nos. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.) and submits that paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment clearly stipulates that once the Award is published, the concerned court becomes functus officio and paragraph nos. 19 and 20 of the said judgement it has been held that the award cannot be reviewed or recalled after its publication . The learned counsel submits that the impugned order be set-aside being wholly without jurisdiction. Arguments of the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there are numerous judgments of this Court which says that the monetary compensation is to be paid right from the date of death of the ex-employee and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that in case this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the right of the petitioner to avail the remedy under law to claim the monetary compensation from April, 2004 to July 2015 may be kept intact so that the respondent may realize the same through remedies under the law. Rejoinder argument of the petitioner. 7. To this the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no straight-jacket law on this aspect of the matter and there are contrary views of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is serious dispute in connection with the claim of the respondent and the date from which the respondent is entitled for monetary benefits Findings of this court. 8. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) a specific issue was framed in paragraph 15 of the report as under: - "Whether the Tribunal was functus officio having earlier made an award which was published by the appropriate Government." In the said case the award was made on 12-6-1987 and was published in the gazette on 10-8-1987 and the application for recall was made on 7-9-1987. It has been held that under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Act an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17 of the Act and thus the award became enforceable with effect from 9-9-1987. It has been held that under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Act an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17 of the Act and thus the award became enforceable with effect from 9-9-1987. However, the application for recalling the award was made on 7-9-1987 i.e. 2 days before the award would have become enforceable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Act. It was held that the High Court rightly took the view that since the application for recall of the order was made before the award had become enforceable, the Tribunal had not become functus officio and had jurisdiction to entertain the application for recall. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to earlier judgement in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal [1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309] held that the proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A and the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain the application in connection with such dispute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal has to be seen on the date of the application made to it and not the date on which it passed the impugned order. It has also been held in paragraph 19 that where a court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a different category. The procedural review belongs to a different category. In cases of seeking review on procedural ground the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground which may justify a review but he has to establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no fault of his. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that in the said case the recall of the award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground that in passing the award the Tribunal had committed any procedural illegality or mistake of the nature which vitiated the proceeding itself and consequently the award, but on the ground that some matters which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not duly considered. In the said case it was held that apparently, the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either expressly or by necessary implication. 9. Thus, it has been clearly held in the aforesaid judgement that no petition can be entertained by the tribunal once the award becomes enforceable and in absence of any power of review, the review or recall is not maintainable and review on ground of procedural error stands on different footing. 10. The award was pronounced on 21.11.2014 and the dismissal order of late Banshidhar Mahakuru with effect from 18.11.2003 was held to be not justified and his wife was directed to be given monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment to which the widow of the workman agreed and the reference was answered accordingly. However, the period of entitlement of monetary compensation was not mentioned in the award. However, the period of entitlement of monetary compensation was not mentioned in the award. The award was published vide notification dated 20.1.2015 after obtaining approval from the competent authority and office order dated 25.10.2016 was issued in favour of the widow to pay her monetary compensation till 31.3.2026 i.e. the date on which the widow would attain the age of sixty years. The application for payment of monetary compensation was submitted by the widow in the month of July 2015 and the payment was made with effect from August, 2015. After a year the Union filed an application which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 03 of 2017 by seeking monetary compensation with effect from July 2004 till June 2016 and alleging that the award has not been implemented in letter and spirit. 11. The petition was opposed by the petitioner stating it to be not maintainable by submitting that the award had attained finality and the management had granted approval for payment of monetary compensation as per the award and the tribunal had not directed for payment of monetary compensation from April 2004. 12. The learned tribunal referred to the schedule of reference of reference case no. 44 of 2008 and findings recorded therein, interpreted the award and directed for payment of monetary compensation for the period from April 2004 to July 2015 as per NCWA within one month from the order of Tribunal although the award did not specify the period for which the monetary compensation was to be paid. Such order has the effect of modifying the award after its publication and after it had become enforceable as per law. 13. The award passed on 21.11.2014 was published in the official gazettee on 20.01.2015 and it became enforceable on and from 20.02.2015. The petitioner allowed monetary compensation from August 2015. 14. After the award became enforceable, the wife of the deceased employee filed a petition to claim monetary compensation from April 2004 to July 2016; the petition was entertained and a direction was issued to make payment for the aforesaid period from April 2004 to July 2016. The learned tribunal modified the earlier award by asking the petitioner to pay the monetary compensation from April 2004 to July 2015 although no such period was specified in the award. Such power was exercised by the learned tribunal after the award became enforceable on 20.2.2015. The learned tribunal modified the earlier award by asking the petitioner to pay the monetary compensation from April 2004 to July 2015 although no such period was specified in the award. Such power was exercised by the learned tribunal after the award became enforceable on 20.2.2015. In fact, the petition for the aforesaid relief for grant of monetary compensation from July 2004 till June 2016 was entertained after the tribunal had become functus officio and there was no scope for the industrial tribunal to entertain the miscellaneous case as filed by the respondent. The fact remains that the claim for monetary compensation from the month of April 2004 to July 2015 has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and both the parties have referred to judgements in connection with the period of entitlement and this court is of the considered view that such dispute requires adjudication. 15. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order having been passed on a petition filed after the award had become enforceable and the learned court had become functus officio, is wholly without jurisdiction and is hereby set-aside. 16. However, the liberty is reserved with the respondent to avail the remedy in connection with the claim of monetary compensation from the date of death of her husband till July 2015 through remedies as may be available under law. This order will not prejudice the case of the respondent in any manner. It is just to put on record that as per the impugned order, there was no grievance with regard to payment of monetary compensation post July, 2015. 17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.