A Labour Court does not have the inherent power to review its own reviewed judgment after a lapse of 277 days.

( 1 ) IN this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the question that falls for determination is whether a labour court in a computation case has the inherent power to review its own reviewed judgment after lapse of two hundred and seventy seven days. The facts leading to the present application, which undoubtedly portray how justice delivery system can be made a mockery are as follows.

( 2 ) SURENDRA Nath Guha Sarkar was a workman under M/s. B. K. Saha and Bros. Private Ltd. The said Private Limited Company was converted into a Limited Company by operation of law and was added as a party in the industrial reference case before the first Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta - and is respondent No. 2 herein. The writ petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of Surendra Nath Sarkar who worked under the said company since July 3, 1953. The said employer served a notice dated May 15, 1976 addressed to all his employees including S. N. Guha Sarkar intimating that all employees working under it would be the employees of Samir Kumar, Mihir Kumar Saha as per agreement dated May 13, 1976. The notice was strongly opposed by the workmen.

( 3 ) ON August 12, 1978 the Government of West Bengal referred to the First Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the said dispute of S. N. Guha Sarkar under reference No. 3510/ir. The employer company moved an application under Article 226 of the constitution against the said reference which was registered as C. R. No. 8223 (W) of 1978. The application was disposed of by an order dated February 25, 1980 with a direction to dispose of the reference case within four months from date. Thereafter the workman as also the employer Company filed written statements with lists of documents.

( 4 ) ON May 8, 1983 S. N. Guha Sarkar died intestate and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives who are the present writ petitioners. The Tribunal took up the case for hearing twice but the employer company failed to adduce further evidence and May 25, 1984 was fixed for argument.

( 5 ) ON August 30, 1984 the employer company moved a writ application against the said order of closing further evidence and fixation of May 25, 1984 for argument being C. O. No. 19416 (W) 1984. Upon hearing the parties the writ application was dismissed on March 19, 1985. Against the said order the employer company preferred an appeal being F. M. A. T. No. 1057 of 1985 which was also dismissed on August 23, 1985 by the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the subsequent hearing before the Tribunal the employer company wanted to adduce further evidence which was opposed by the workman and upon hearing the parties the Tribunal refused to accept further evidence. Against this order the company moved another application under Article 226 of the Constitution being C. O. No. 3385 (W) of 1986 which was rejected by this Hon'ble Court.

( 6 ) ON June 19, 1987 the Tribunal passed its Award as follows:"under such circumstances there is no escape from the conclusion that Sri. S. N, Guha Sarkar was entitled to back wages with effect from June 1, 1976 along with usual increments including dearness allowances, P. F, Gratuity, Bonus, Leave Pay in credit and other benefits to which he was entitled had he been in service from the Company. "

( 7 ) "admittedly in the instant case the company has not produced any contract of employment regarding superannuation on reaching a particular age. No Standing Orders of the company as to age of retirement have been produced before this Tribunal"

( 8 ) THE Award was eventually published by the Government of West Bengal in its official Gazette dated August 2, 1987.

( 9 ) ON October 15, 1987 the petitioners filed computation case No. 155 of 1987 for recovery of the dues under Section 33 (c) (2) of the I. D. Act read with Rule 74 (3) before the Second Labour Court, West Bengal which issued notice to appear and file objection on December 14, 1987. The respo