The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court is not functus officio after the award becomes enforceable, and it has the discretion to entertain applications for setting aside ex-parte awards based on the principles of natural justice.

HARSH BUNGER, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the award dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, whereby, the Labour Court had decided the reference of Industrial Dispute raised by him under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act, 1947’), as award of “No Dispute” in view of the fact that the workman as well as the Management, were proceeded against ex-parte.

The petitioner further challenges the order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat; whereby, an application filed by him for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 25.11.2016, was dismissed, by relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sangam Tape Company vs Hans Raj 2004(iii) CLR 776, wherein it was held that once the award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17-A of the Act, 1947, then the Labour Court would become functus officio.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as `Safai Karamchari’ on 01.05.2002 with the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation (respondents No.2 and 3) and he is stated to have continued in service without any break upto 06.06.2015 at fixed wages of Rs.150/- per day at the time of his appointment, which according to him, were increased from time to time, as per the prescribed Payment of wages Act. According to the petitioner, he requested the Management to regularize his services since he had completed more than 10 years’ satisfactory service with the respondent-Corporation. However, the Management, instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner, got annoyed with him and his services were terminated on 06.06.2015 without giving any notice or payment of any retrenchment compensation to him. As per the petitioner, the other persons, who were junior to him, were retained in service while terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have completed more than 240 days continuous service.

3. The petitioner-workman sent a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act, 1947 with a prayer to re-instate him in service, which was contested by the Corporation. Before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, since no compromise could take place between the parties, accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to file a claim petition before the Labour Court, Panipat. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Panipat, which was contested by the Corporation by filing its reply.

4. As per the petitioner, his case was listed before the Industrial Tribunal, Panipat on 25.11.2016 for the purpose of filing the replication; however, none of the parties were present, accordingly, both the parties were proceeded against ex-parte by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P-9) and the award of `No Dispute’ was passed. The relevant extract of award dated 25.11.2016, reads as under :-

“4. Today, the case was fixed for filing replication on behalf of the workman but none has appeared on behalf of both parties and therefore, both parties are hereby proceeded against ex-parte.

5. In this case, both the workman as well as respondent has been proceeded against ex parte. This accordingly shows that neither of the party wants to prosecute the reference. This shows that “No Dispute” remains to be determined. Hence, Award of “No Dispute” is hereby passed. The reference stands answered accordingly.”

5. The afore-said award is stated to have been published by the competent authority on 15.12.2016.

6. As per the petitioner, on 01.05.2017, he filed an application for restoration before the Industrial Tribunal by stating that on 25.11.2016, he was present before the Tribunal since morning and when the case was called out for hearing, then he coul