KURIAN, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The question arising for consideration in this case is whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award.
(3.) In view of the conflict between two decisions of this Court - Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj, (2005) 9 SCC 331 and Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H Patel and another, (2009) 2 SCC 81, by order dated 21.01.2011 in Haryana Suraj Malting Limited v. Phool Chand, (2012) 8 SCC 579, a reference to a larger bench was made in the following terms: "1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court becomes functus officio after 30 days of the pronouncement/publication of the award and loses all powers to recall an ex parte award on an application made by the aggrieved party after 30 days from the date of pronouncement/publication of the award is the question that once again arises for consideration in these cases. 2. It may be noted that on this question two Division Bench decisions have taken apparently conflicting views. In Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj a two-Judge Bench held and observed that an application for recall of an ex parte award may be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court only in case it is filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date of pronouncement/publication of the award. A contrary view was taken in Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H. Patel to which one of us (Aftab Alam, J.) was a party. 3. In both cases, that is to say, Sangham Tape Co. and Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi, the Court referred to and relied upon the earlier decisions in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Anil Sood v. Labour Court but read and interpreted those two decisions completely differently. 4. The conflict which has arisen as a result of the two decisions can only be resolved by a larger Bench. Let these cases be, therefore, listed before a three-Judge Bench.";