NELLORE DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDENT NELLORE DT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award after expiry of 30 days of its publication is the question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition. The industrial dispute arising out of the punishment of reduction of two increments without cumulative effect imposed by the Management/writ petitioner was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication on the dispute raised by the President, the Nellore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees Association, the petitioner (sic. 1 st Respondent) herein and the same was numbered as I.D.No. 109 of 1994.

(2.) On receipt of the notice of the reference, both the claimant/employee and employer filed statements and counter statements. Subsequently the employer remained ex parte and after recording the evidence of the employee, award was passed on October 31, 1997 holding that the management of the Nellore Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nellore-Writ Petitioner herein is not justified in awarding the punishment of withholding of two annual increments of Sri P. Venku Reddy, Supervisor and the Management was directed to pay all the incremental arrears which were not paid because of the punishment awarded to the employee/first respondent herein by the petitioner- Management. The said award was published on December 17, 1997 as contemplated under the Rules. Thereafter the management filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte award, as there is delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. The Management filed I.A.No. 181 of 1998 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 40 days. The Labour Court dismissed the same holding that once the Award was published in the Gazette, after expiry of 30 days the Labour Court will become functus officio and, thus, will have no jurisdiction to entertain the application for condonation of delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. The Labour Court further held that no sufficient reason was explained for condoning the delay for setting aside the ex parte award, Aggrieved by the same, the management/petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the representative of the petitioner-Bank was attending the case. Some times the camp Court was cancelled and he could not have further information of the posting of the case. As such when the case was posted for trial and the camp Court was cancelled, the representative of the bank could not have further information about the posting of the case. While so on January 9, 1998 the petitioner-Bank received the award passed by the Labour Court. Immediately they filed an application on March 24, 1998 to set aside the ex parte award. The Labour Court dismissed the same on the ground that it has become functus officio as the same was filed after expiry of the thirty days of publication of the award. It is further submitted that absence on the date of adjournment is not wilful and only because of not knowing the exact date of posting. He also placed reliance on the Judgments in Satnam Varma v. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 294 : 1984 Supp SCC 712 : 1985-I-LLJ-79, and APSRTC v. K. Bhoomaiah 1987 (2) LLN 240 (AP) On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the Labour Court will become functus officio after expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award and will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed for setting aside the ex parte award. In the present case, award was passed on October 31, 1997 and it was published on December 17, 1997 and that award will become enforceable after expiry of thirty days as per Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the Labour Court was right in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. Apart from the same, it is contended that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex pane award. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on Anil Sood v. S. K.Sarvaria 1997-I-LLJ-1066 (Del-DB).