The Labour Court retains jurisdiction to entertain applications to set aside ex-parte awards beyond thirty days when principles of natural justice are not adhered to.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to assail the order dated 18th May, 2022 (Annexure-8) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in Restoration Misc. Case No.1 of 2018 and prays for a direction to allow the petition restoring the Industrial Dispute Case to file.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner-Management was not served with notice in ID Case No.6 of 2015. Hence, it could not contest the case. As such, an ex- parte award was passed on 16^th December, 2016. When the Petitioner came to know about the ex-parte award, it filed an application on 13^th February, 2018, for setting aside the ex-parte award, which was registered as Restoration Misc. Case No.1 of 2018. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur, while adjudicating the matter relied upon the ratio in the case of Sangham Tape Co. Vs. Hans Raj , reported in 2004 (103) FLR 699 , wherein it is held that after thirty days of passing of the award, the Labour Court becomes functus officio and the award becomes binding on the parties. Thus, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that it has no jurisdiction to set aside the ex- parte award after its publication in the official gazette. He, therefore, dismissed the application. As such, this writ petition has been filed.

3.1 Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the case law in the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand , reported in (2018) 16 SCC 567 , wherein, it is held as under: -

“37. Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. An award passed denying an opportunity of hearing when there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance can be challenged on the ground of it being nullity. An award which is a nullity cannot be and shall not be a binding award. In case a party is able to show sufficient cause within a reasonable time for its non-appearance in the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is bound to consider such an application and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that it was filed after the award had become enforceable. The Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex parte award is concerned. It is within its powers to entertain an application as per the scheme of the Act and in terms of the rules of natural justice. It needs to be restated that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a welfare legislation intended to maintain industrial peace. In that view of the matter, certain powers to do justice have to be conceded to the Labour Court/Tribunal, whether we call it ancillary, incidental or inherent.”

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management that there were divergent views to entertain an application for setting aside the ex-parte award after thirty days of its pronouncement and publication in official gazette. Hence, the case of Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (supra) was referred to larger Bench to answer the following: -

“2. In view of the conflict between two decisions of this Court — Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj [Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj, (2005) 9 SCC 331 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 65] and Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel [Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel, (2009) 2 SCC 81 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 358] , by order dated 21-1-2011 in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand [Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, (2012) 8 SCC 579 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 710]