The findings of fact reached by the Tribunal cannot be questioned in writ proceedings, and the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to set aside an exparte award.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 12th November, 2010, made by the learned Single Judge/Writ Court in CWP No. 1910 of 2009, titled as Harbans Singh versus Ld. President, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned judgment”).

2. The appellant writ petitioner approached the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance, which culminated into a reference. An exparte award was made by the H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla (for short “the Labour Court”) on 13th November, 2006, perhaps without recording evidence as, in terms of para 6 of the award, only the appellant writ petitioner has stepped into the witness box.

3. On noticing the exparte award, respondent No. 2company filed an application for setting aside the exparte award, which was granted vide order, dated 28th April, 2009. The Labour Court has specifically mentioned in paras 13 and 14 of order, dated 28th April, 2009, what was the foundation for recalling/setting aside the exparte award and relegating the parties to contest the reference.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant writ petitioner questioned order, dated 28th April, 2009, made by the Labour Court by the medium of CWP No. 1910 of 2009, met with the same fate in terms of the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner argued that the Labour Court as well as the Writ court has fallen in an error in recalling/setting aside the exparte award. The argument is devoid of any force for the following reasons:

6. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) contains the mechanism how a reference is to be made and when an award become enforceable in terms of the mandate of Section 17 of the Act. While going through the mandate of the Act, it appears that the award includes exparte award also.

7. It also provides that an award becomes enforceable after thirty days of its receipt by the appropriate Government. Meaning thereby the aggrieved party has to seek appropriate remedy.

8. The Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short “the Rules”) were framed by the Legislatures and Rule 18 of the Rules provides how service of the summons is to be effected, is suggestive of the fact that the mandate of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) is not applicable. It specifically provides that summons is to be served personally or by registered post.

9. While going through the reasons recorded by the Labour Court in para 13 of order, dated 28th April, 2009, it appears that notice was not served personally upon respondent No. 2 Company through its General Manager, but has been served upon the Factory Manager, which, on the face of it, is not as per the mandate of the Rule 18 of the Rules.

10. The same question arose before the Apex Court in the case titled as Grindlays Bank Ltd. versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, reported in 1980 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 420, wherein it has been held that the Industrial Tribunal is competent to set aside its exparte award. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the judgment herein:

“14. The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and, therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that the Central Government alone could set it aside does not commend to us. Subsection (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A. Under Section 17A of the Act, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under Section 17. The proceedings with regard to a reference under S. 10 of the Act are, therefore, not deemed to be concluded until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it