M/S. SANGHAM TAPE COMPANY versus HANS RAJ

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 27-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
·MIS. SANGHAM TAPE COMPANY 
v. 
HANS RAJ 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 17 A-Industrial Court-
Jurisdicticn of-To set aside ex-parte award-Held: Industrial Tribunals and 
Labour Courts have limited jurisdiction unlike an ordinary civil Court-Such 
jurisdiction can be exercised within 31 days from the date of publication of 
the award-After expiry of 30 days Labour Court becomes functus officio. 
Code a/Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder IX Rule I 3-Applicability of the 
provision to industrial adjudication-Held: The provision would be applicable 
provided Rules framed under Industrial Disputes Act provide for its 
applicability. 
Constitution of India, I950-Article I4I: 
Precedent-A/act situation in one case cannot be said to be a precedent 
for another case. 
Respondent-employee despite having arrived at full and final 
settlement with appellant-employer regarding his employment, filed a 
F 
reference petition before labour Court claiming reinstatement with other 
benefits. Ex-parte award was passed by labour Court. Appellant having 
come to know about the award, moved application for setting aside the 
same; and the same was set aside after a lapse of 30 days from the date 
of publication of the award. Respondent filed Writ Petition which was 
G 
H 
allowed by High Court setting aside the order of labour Court. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that provisions of 
Order IX Rule 13 CPC are applicable to, industrial adjudication and 
hence labour Court had jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte award if 
sufficient cause was shown and that such jurisdiction cannot be limited 
to a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. 
728 
SANGHAM TAPE COMPANYv. HANS RAJ 
729 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder. 
The rules framed under th_e Act may provide for applicability of the 
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the provisions of the B 
Code of Civil Procedure are made application io the industrial 
adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 thereof 
would be attracted. But unlike an ordinary Civil Court the Industrial 
Tribunals and the Labour Courts have limited jurisdiction in that behalf. 
An award made by an Industrial Court becomes enforceable under 
Section 17 A of the Act on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its 
C 
publication. Once the award becomes enforceable the Industrial Tribunal 
and or Labour Court becomes functus officio. (731-D-E) 
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court found that the application for 
setting aside the award was filed before the Labour Court after one month D 
of the publication of the award. Such jurisdiction could be exercised by 
the Labour Court within a limited time frame, namely, within thirty days 
from the date of publication of the award. Once an award becomes 
enforceable in terms of Section 17 A of the Act, the Labour Court or the 
Tribunal, as the case may be does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to 
setting aside of an award passed by it. (732-F-G) 
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and 
Ors., (1980) Supp. SCC 420; Satnam Verma v. Union of India, (1984) 
Supp. SCC 712 and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 
(1996) 6 sec 92, relied on. 
Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, (2001) 2 SCALE 193, 
distinguished. 
2. A fact situation obtaining in one case cannot be said to be a 
precedent for another. (733-B) 
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, [2004) 2 SCC 362, 
relied on. 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2064of2002. H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.200 l of the Punjab and 
B 
c 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 823 l of 2000. 
Neeraj Kumar Jain and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : This appeal is directed against an order dated 
30.4.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court 
in Civil Writ Petition No. 8231 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ 
petition filed by the Respondent herein questioning the order of the Lr.bour 
Court dated 11.5.2000 setting aside an ex parte award in favour of the 
Respondent herein, was· allowed. 
f'.ACTS: 
The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.