The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the powers of the Labour Court to review or recall its order on the ground of procedural defect.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri 3. N. Tewari, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C. B. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) M/s Precision S. G. Iron Foundary (P) Ltd. , Nand Gaon Road, Koshikalan, District-Mathura through its Managing Director has filed this writ petition against the orders dated 15th december, 2004 and dated 29th April, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. New Agra in Adjudication Case No. 156 of 2000. The petitioner is an industry engaging in manufacturing of Foundry Iron and Cast Iron situated at Mathura. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3, namely, Ramjeet was admittedly employed in the aforesaid industry. The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination from service enforced w. e. f. 23rddecember, 1996. The dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 150 of 2000. The Labour Court by means of its ex parte award dated 27th March, 2002 held that parties have entered into a settlement dated 9th September, 1998 and therefore, the proceedings are being concluded in terms of the policy of the settlement dated 9th September, 1998. The said award was published on 30th August, 2002. The workman (respondent No. 3) filed an application for recall of the ex parte award dated 27th March, 2002 admittedly after more than 30 days of its publication.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the workman it was claimed that the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the parties is not bona fide inasmuch as the workman did not enter into any such compromise with the employer, therefore, the entire award, which is based on the aforesaid forged settlement is legally not sustainable and is liable to be recalled. The application so filed by the workman was allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by means of the order dated 15th December, 2003 after recording a finding that on the compromise presented by the employers, the workman had not been issued notice of the date on which the alleged compromise was presented and has specifically denied of any such compromise. It is therefore, in the interest of justice that the workman may be afforded afforded an opportunity in respect of the alleged compromise and therefore, the ex parte award dated 27th March, 2002 be recalled. Against the said order of the Labour Court the petitioner preferred a review application. The review application so filed by the petitioner (employers) was rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 29th April, 2005 after recording a finding that the Labour Court has no power to review its order.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has fairly been conceded that the finding recorded by the Labour court to the effect that the Labour Court does not have any power to review its order, cannot be disputed. However, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the labour Court dated 15th December, 2003 setting aside the ex parte award dated 27th March, 2002 cannot be legally sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the application for setting aside the ex parte award had been filed by the workman after expiry of more than 30 days of the publication of the award and therefore, the Labour Court had become functus officio and could not have entertained the application filed by the workman for recall of ex parte award dated 27th march, 2002.

( 6 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.

( 7 ) FROM the findings recorded by the Labour Court it is apparently clear that the Labour Court proceeded to decide the reference made under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of compromise filed by the petitioner (employers) on the date the workman was admittedly absent. The Labour Court could not have relied upon the ex parte compromise and could not have passed ex parte award o