M/S. SANGHAM TAPE COMPANYversusHANS RAJ

A                    ·MIS. SANGHAM TAPE COMPANY
                                  v.
                               HANS RAJ

                              SEPTEMBER 27, 2004

B                [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

         Labour Law:

          Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 17A-Industrial Court-
c   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 ofpublication 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
D   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:
E        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
    allowed by High Court setting aside the order of labour Court.
G
           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
H   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 17A 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)                               E

     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.                                                     F
      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)                                                  G

      Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, [2004) 2 SCC 362,
relied on.

     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
     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
B
           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
c    Court dated 11.5.2000 setting aside an ex parte award in favour of the
     Respondent herein, was· allowed.

     f'.ACTS:

           The Respondent was appointed as a Machineman by the Appellant in
D '1980. The Appellant contended that the Respondent had been absenting from
     duties off and on but he had been allowed to join his dutfus in different
     periods. On or about 09.11.1991, a complaint petition was filed by him
     through the trade union before the Labour Inspector Circle III Jalandhar on
     an allegation that the management had not provided him and other similarly
E    situated persons duties since 8.11.1991. The said complaint was registered
     as Ref. No. 87/91 wherein a settlement was arrived at, pursuant whereto or
     in furtherance whereof the Respondent is said to have received a sum ofR~.
     2675.70 in full and final settlement of his dues. Despite the said settlement,
     on or about 17.11.1992, he allegedly filed a reference petition before the
     Labour Court, Jalandhar which was marked as Reference No. 87 of 1991,
F    claiming his reinstatement with full back-wages, continuity of service and all
     consequential service benefits.

          An ex parte award was passed by the said Labour Court on
     5.2.1996.

G          The Appellant purportedly upon coming to know about the
     pronouncement of the said ex parte award, moved an application for setting
     aside the same. By reason of an order dated 11.5.2000, the ex parte award
     was set aside. Contending that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to set
     aside the ex parte award after a lapse of 30 days from the date of publication
H    of the award, the respondent herein filed a writ petition before thef'Punjab
      . SANGHAM TAPE COMPANYv. HANS RAJ [SINHA, J.]                        731

and Haryana High Court which was marked as Civil Writ Petition No. 8231            A
of2000. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside order
of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the
appellant is in appeal before us.

      Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, would submit that having regard to the fact that the provisions of
                                                                                   B
Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to an
 industrial adjudication, the Labour Court must be held to have ample
jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award, if"sufficient cause therefor is
shown. The learned counsel would further submit that such exercise of
jurisdiction by the Labour Court cannot be limited to a period of 30 days from     c
 the date of publication of the award. Reliance, in its connection, has been
 placed on A nil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, (2001) 2 SCALE
 193.

     An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Industrial
                                                                                   D
Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed
thereunder. The rules framed under the Act may provide for applicability of
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to 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        E
Courts have limited jurisdiction in that behalf. An award made by the
industrial court becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Act on the
expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Once the award becomes
enforces enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal and/or Labour Court becomes
functus officio.
                                                                                   F
      This Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal and Others, [1980) Supp. SCC 420, held that the Tribunal does not
become functus officio provided an application for setting aside the award
is filed within thirty days of publication of award having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act and Rules 22 and 24 of the           G
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 stating :

         "The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio and,
         therefore, had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte award and that
         the Central Government alone could set it aside, does not commend         H
    732                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
                                                                                       -.
A            to us. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the
            proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till
            the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-
            A. Under Section 17-A of the Act, an award becomes enforceable
            on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication under
            Section 17. The proceedings with regard to a reference under
B
            Section JO of the Act are, therefore, not deemed to be concluded
            until the expiry of 30 days from the publication of the award Till
            then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute referred to it
            for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain
            an application in connection with such dispute. That stage is not
c              I

            reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A. In
            the instant case, the Tribunal made the ex parte award on December
            9, 1976. That award was published by the Central Government in
             the Gazett~ oflndia dated December 25, 1976. The application for
             setting aside the ex parte award was filed on January 19, 1977 i.e.,
             before the expiry of 30 days of its publication and was, therefore,
D            rightly entertained by the Tribunal... ... "

          The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that
    while an Industrial Court will have jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award
    but having regard to the provision contained in Section 17A of the Act, an
E   application therefor must be filed before the expiry of 30 days from the
    publication thereof. Till then Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute
    referred to it for adjudication and only upto that date, it has the power to
    entertain an application in connection with such dispute.

          It ·is not in dispute that in the instant case, the High Court found as of
F   fact that the application for setting aside the award was filed.,before the
    Labour Court after one month of the publication of the award.

          In view of this Court's decision in Grindlays Bank (supra) 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.
G   Once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17A 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. In other
    words, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the award
    in the gazette, the same having become enforceable, the Labour Court would
H   become functus officio.
         SANGHAM TAPE COMPANY v. HANS RAJ [SINHA, J.]                     733

     Grindlays Bank (supra) has been followed in Satnam Verma v. Union            A
of India, [1984] Supp. SCC 712 and JK. Synthetics Ltd v. Collector of
Central Excise, [1996] 6 SCC 92.

      This Court in Ani/ Sood (supra) did not Jay down any law to the
contrarx. The contention raised on the part of Mr. Jain to the effect that in     B
fact in that case an application for setting aside an award was made long after
30 days cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly a fact situation
obtaining in one case cannot be said to be precedent for another. [See
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, [2004] 2 SCC 362.
Secondly, from a perusal of the said decision, it does not appear that any date
of publication of the said decision, it does not appear that any date of          C
publication the application was made 30 days after the expiry of publication
of the award. Furthermore, the said decision appears to have been rendered
on concession.

     For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
                                                                                  D

K.K.T.                                                     Appeal dismissed.