1. Dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals or Labour Courts to set aside ex parte awards after they become enforceable under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 544
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, NAVIN SINHA, JJ,
M/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PHOOL CHAND – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5650 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6091 of 2010) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5649 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6092 of 2010) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.5893 OF 2012
Decided On : 18-05-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Labour court/ Industrial Tribunal is competent to set aside ex parte order if sufficient cause is shown within reasonable time. Sufficient cause and reasonable time should be left to judicial discretion of Tribunal.
Award becoming enforceable does not necessarily become binding.
Labour court/ Industrial Tribunal is competent to set aside ex parte order if sufficient cause is shown within reasonable time. Sufficient cause and reasonable time should be left to judicial discretion of Tribunal.
Award becoming enforceable does not necessarily become binding.
Subject
Industrial Disputes - LABOUR COURT JURISDICTION
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 38 r/w Rule 10B(9) and 22, Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 – Labour Court/Tribunal empowered to follow its own procedure including to proceed ex parte – Award becoming enforceable after a period of 30 days of its publication – Setting aside of ex parte award – Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Limitation Act, 1963 not applicable to the Labour Court/Tribunal – Tribunal competent to set aside ex parte order if sufficient cause is shown within reasonable time – Sufficient cause and reasonable time left to judicial discretion of Tribunal. (Para 12, 14, 30, 32)
(2005) 9 SCC 331; (2009) 2 SCC 81; 1980 (Supp) SCC 420; (2001) 10 SCC 534; (2006) 12 SCC 193; (2005) 13 SCC 777; (2015) 7 SCC 58; (1969) 2 SCC 199; (1990) 4 SCC 453; (1996) 6 SCC 92 – Relied upon
(2012) 8 SCC 579 – Referred
(b) Section 29 – Penalty for breach of award – Award becoming enforceable – Not necessarily becoming binding. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
The question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award.
Finding of the Court:
Awards are required to be remitted to the Labour Court for consideration as to whether there was sufficient cause for nonappearance of the management.
Result: Awards remitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Industrial Tribunals become functus officio after 30 days of award publication, thereby losing power to recall ex parte awards. (Para 3 )
3. Tribunals possess ancillary and incidental powers to set aside ex parte awards to prevent nullities and ensure natural justice, regardless of the award's enforceability. (Para 14 , 20 , 30 , 33 , 35 )
4. Industrial Tribunals are not functus officio after an award becomes enforceable and retain power to set aside ex parte awards upon showing sufficient cause. (Para 35 )
5. Awards remitted to Labour Court to determine sufficient cause for non-appearance, with a direction for provisional payment to workmen. (Para 36 )
6. Does an Industrial Tribunal become functus officio after an award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act?
No, the Tribunal is not functus officio regarding the setting aside of an ex parte award. It retains the power to entertain such applications to ensure natural justice and prevent the enforcement of a nullity. (Para 35 )
7. On what basis can a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal set aside an ex parte award?
Tribunals exercise ancillary and incidental powers, guided by the principles of Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, to set aside awards where a party was prevented from appearing due to sufficient cause. (Para 14 , 19 , 30 , 32 )
8. Does the enforceability of an award under Section 17A make it binding even if passed ex parte without sufficient cause?
Enforceability does not necessarily mean the award is binding. An award passed in violation of natural justice, where sufficient cause for non-appearance existed, is a nullity and cannot be binding. (Para 35 )
9. Is there a strict 30-day limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte award?
No, the power to set aside an ex parte award is not circumscribed by a strict limitation period; instead, the application should be invoked within a reasonable time. (Para 30 , 32 )
JUDGMENT
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award.
3. In view of the conflict between two decisions of this Court -Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj, (2005) 9 SCC 331 and Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H Patel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 81 by order dated 21.01.2011 in Haryana Suraj Malting Limited v. Phool Chand , (2012) 8 SCC 579 a reference to a larger bench was made in the following terms:
“1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court becomes functus officio after 30 days of the pronouncement/publication of the award and loses all powers to recall an ex parte award on an application made by the aggrieved party after 30 days from the date of pronouncement/publication of the award is the question that once again arises for consideration in these cases.
2. It may be noted that on this question two Division Bench decisions have taken apparently conflicting views. In Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj a two-Judge Bench held and observed that an application for recall of an ex parte award may be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court only in case it is filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date of pronouncement/publication of the award. A contrary view was taken in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel to which one of us (Aftab Alam, J.) was a party.
3. In both cases, that is to say, Sangham Tape Co. and Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi, the Court referred to and relied upon the earlier decisions in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anil Sood v. Labour Court but read and interpreted those two decisions completelydifferently.
4. The conflict which has arisen as a result of the two decisions can only be resolved by a larger Bench. Let these cases be, therefore, listed before a three-Judge Bench.”
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel assisting the Court as Amicus Curiae.
5. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was enacted “…to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain other purposes”. Chapter IV provides for the “procedure, powers and duties of authorities”. Under Section 11(1) of Chapter IV, it is provided that the Labour Court or Tribunal can follow such procedure as it thinks fit.
“11(1) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, an arbitrator, a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority concerned may think fit.”
6. Under Section 17(1), an award shall be published by the appropriate Government within 30 days of its receipt. Under Section 17(2), the award becomes final subject to Section 17A. Under Section 17A, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17.
7. Section 20 deals with the commencement and conclusion of proceedings. Under Section 20(3), proceedings before the Court/Tribunal shall be deemed to have been concluded on the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A.
“20. Commencement and conclusion of proceedings.-(1) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which a notice of strike or lock-out under section 22 is received by the conciliation officer or on the date of the order referring the dispute to a Board, as the case may be.
(2) A conciliation proceeding shall be deemed to have concluded-
(a) where a settlement is arrived at, when a memorandum of the settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute;
(b) where no settlement is arrived at, when the report of the conciliation officer is received by the appropriate Government or when the report of the Board is published under section 17, as the case may be;
