RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI versus L. H. PATEL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 21-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S,C.R. 490 
A 
RADHAKRISHNAMANI TRIPATHI 
~· ~ 
v. 
L. H. PATEL & AN~. 
··(Civil Appeal No. 6737 of. 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 21, 2008 
[TARUN C,HATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
r-
" 
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (BOMBAY) RULES, 1957: 
c 
r. 26(2) -·Setting aside of ah ·ex-parte award - Labour 
Court set aside the award after 30 days of its publication-
HELDi If there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a 
party from appeari~g and the party is visited with an award 
without notice which is a nullity, the Labour Court/Tribunal must 
D have power to set aside-the ex-parte award - Rule 26(2). is 
not in conflict with s.17-A of the Act- In the instant case, the 
application for recalling ex-parte award was completely in 
accordance with r. 26(2) and the Labour Court rightly allowed 
the same""" Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.17A. 
E 
An ex-parte award under the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 was made on 12.6.1998 by the Labour Court 
directing reinstatement of the appellant. It was published 
on 5.8.1998. On 29.1.1999 respondent No.1 applied before 
F the Labour Court for recall of the award stating that no 
notice was served on him; that he was not aware of the 
't-·-
proceedings before the Labour Court and he came to 
know about it on 27 .1.1999 on receiving a copy of the 
award sent to him by the Labour Court. The application 
G was allowed. The writ petition filed by the appellant 
challenging the recall of the award was dismissed by the 
High Court. 
t-
In the instant appeal it was contended for the 
appellant that on expiry of 30 days from the publication 
.H 
' 
490 
RADHAKRISHNA MANI TRIPATHI v. L H. PATEL & ANR. 491 
-' 
""" 
of the award the Labour Court became functus officio, 
A 
and entertaining of any application for recall thereafter 
would be beyond its authority. It was submitted that 
s.26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 
providing for an application to be made for recall of an 
ex-parte award made under r.26(1) was in derogation of B 
~ 
s.17-A of the Act, in so far as it extended the time for recall 
of the award after the Labour Court ceased to have any 
control or authority over the matter. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. It is undeniable that the order of the 
Labour Court recalling the ex-parte award was completely 
in accordance with Rule 26(2) of the Industrial .Disputes 
(Bombay) Rules, 1957. The petition for recall was filed by 
D 
respondent no.1 within two days of the receipt of a copy 
of the award and he was also able to fully satisfy the 
+ 
Labour Court that there was sufficient cause for his non 
appearance since no notice was ever served on him. 
[Para· 7] [495-G-H; 496-A] 
E 
1.2. This Court in Grindlays Bank* fou'nded the 
industrial Court's jurisdiction and power to recall an ex-
parte award on rr. 22 and 24(b) of Industrial Disputes 
(Central) Rules and what this Court held to be implicit in 
,. -..,-
r.22 of the Central Rules is made explicit and clear in the -F 
Bombay Rules in the form of sub rule (2) of r.26 of the 
Rules. In Grindlays Bank this Court didn't say that the 
industrial courts would have no jurisdiction to entertain 
an application for setting aside an award made after 30 
days of its publication. [Paras 14, 15 and 17] [498-C".D; 
G 
499-E-F] 
-4 
*Grindlays Bank vs. Central Government Industrial 
Tribunal & Ors., (1980) $upp SCC 240, referred to. 
1.3. In Anil Sood's** case this ~ourt has held; if there 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT -REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A is sufficient cause .shown which prevented a party from 
appearing, then .if the party is visited with an award 
without a notice which is a nullity, the Labour Court/ 
Tribunal r:nust have power to set aside the ex-parte award. 
In this view of the matter there is no question of any 
B conflict between Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes 
(Bombay) ·Rules and Section 17 -A of the Act. [Paras 18 
and 19] [500-E-F; 501-A-B] 
. 
~*Anil Sood vs, Presiding Officer Labour Court II, (2001) 
c 10 sec 534, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1980) Supp SCC 240 
referred to 
Para 8 
D 
(2001) 10 sec 534 
relied on 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
· 6737 of 2008. 
~ 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 25.1.2006 of the 
· E High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 7985 
of 2005. 
. .. RachnaJoshi lssar for the Appellant. 
F 
Shyam Diwan, Jatin Zaveri and Manoj Gujar for the 
Respondents. 
...,- "" 
The Judgment of .the Court was delivered by 
AFTAB
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.