LexM/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD. versus PHOOL CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377
M/S. HARYANA SURAJ MALTING LTD.
v.
PHOOL CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2018)
MAY 18, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 16, 17 and 17A – Ex-parte
award – Power to recall, by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
after it becomes enforceable – Held: Industrial tribunal/labour court
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 – 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 –
Furthermore, in case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause
for its absence before the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set
ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or
incidental powers, is competent to entertain such an application –
That power cannot be circumscribed by the principle of functus
officio.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under Section 17(1) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, an award shall be published by the appropriate
Government within 30 days of its receipt. Under Section 17(2),
the award becomes final subject to Section 17A. Under Section
17A, an award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days
from the date of its publication under Section 17. Under the
statutory scheme, the labour court/tibunal is empowered to follow
its own procedure as it thinks fit, meaning thereby, a procedure
which is fit and proper for the settlement of the industrial dispute
and for maintaining industrial peace. If a party fails to attend the
court/tribunal without showing sufficient cause, the court/tribunal
can proceed ex parte and pass an ex parte award. The award,
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 377
377
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
ex parte or otherwise, has to be sent to the appropriate
Government as soon as it is made and the appropriate
Government has to publish it within 30 days of its receipt. The
award thus, published becomes enforceable after a period of 30
days of its publication. Furthermore, an ex parte award can be
set aside in case the court/tribunal is approached within 30 days
of its publication under Section 17 of the Act, is no more res
integra. [Para 7, 12, 14] [382-F-G; 383-C-D; 384-F-G; 385-A]
1.2 On a close reading of Grindlays case in the background
of the analysis of law, it is difficult to comprehend that the power
to set aside an ex parte award is not available to a Labour Court/
Industrial Tribunal. On the principles of natural justice, and on a
purposive interpretation of the scheme of the Act and Rules, it is
difficult also to discern that the ratio of the decision in Grindlays
case, is what is stated to the extent that an application for setting
aside an ex parte award has to be filed within 30 days of publication
of the award. On the contrary, the ratio in Grindlays case is that
the tribunal can exercise its ancillary and incidental powers, on
the broader principles contained under Order IX Rule 13 of the
CPC. No doubt, the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the
labour court/tribunal. [Para 30] [394-GH; 395-A]
1.3 In case a party is in a position to show sufficient cause
for its absence before the labour court/ tribunal when it was set
ex parte, the labour court/tribunal, in exercise of its ancillary or
incidental powers, is competent to entertain such an application.
That power cannot be circumscribed by limitation. What is the
sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction is invoked within a
reasonable time should be left to the judicious discretion of the
labour court/tribunal. [Para 32] [396-D-E]
1.4 It is a matter of natural justice that any party to the
judicial proceedings should get an opportunity of being heard,
and if such an opportunity has been denied for want of sufficient
reason, the labour court/tribunal which denied such an opportunity,
being satisfied of the sufficient cause and within a reasonable
time, should be in a position to set right its own procedure.
Otherwise as held in Grindlays case, an award which may be a
nullity will have to be technically enforced. It is difficult to
comprehend such a situation under law. [Para 33] [396Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.