MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) By means of instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.2.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, U.P. Kanpur rejecting the application of the petitioner praying for setting aside the exparte award dated 20.12.2017 (published on the notice board on 19.5.2018) in Adjudication Case No.33 of 2015.
(2.) The background facts leading to the instant petition are that respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was appointed on the post of Mistri/Mechanic by respondent no.3 in the month of February, 1991; that he worked till 31.10.2014; that his service was illegally terminated without passing any order in writing on 1.11.2014. The application filed in this regard by respondent no.2 dated 13.3.2015 was registered as C.P. Case No.47 of 2015. On 10.8.2015, respondent no.2 sought impleadment of the petitioner in C.P. Case No.47 of 2015. Since the conciliation proceedings did not yield any result, therefore, the dispute was referred under Section 4-K for adjudication by the Labour Court and it came to be registered as Adjudication Case No.33 of 2015. The petitioner was represented by Sri Gyaneshwar Mishra. According to the petitioner, Sri Gyaneshwar Mishra, due to his personal problems, could not attend the case on regular basis and later, abstained from appearing in the case without any information to the petitioner, resulting in an exparte award dated 20.12.2017 being passed against it. The Labour Court directed for reinstatement of respondent no.2 with continuity of service and full back wages. According to the petitioner, it came to know of the exparte award when copy of the same was received by it on 26.5.2018. On 11.6.2018, it moved an application for setting aside the exparte award alongwith affidavit of Manager (Operation). The application was opposed by respondent no.2. The Labour Court by impugned order rejected the said application holding that the explanation furnished for non-appearance is not satisfactory and also on the ground that under Rule 16 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, an application praying for setting aside of exparte award could be filed only within ten days from the date of publication of the award. In other words, the view taken is that after expiry of the time prescribed under Rule 16 (2), the award had become enforceable rendering the Labour Court functus officio to entertain or decide any application.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first place the Labour Court has committed a manifest illegality in ignoring cogent explanation offered by the petitioner entitling it to a hearing and case being decided on merits. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in M.K. Prasad Vs. R. Arumugam, 2001 (3) AWC 2395. In addition, it is urged that the law that after publication of award and expiry of the prescribed period, the award becomes enforceable rendering the Labour Court/Tribunal functus officio is no longer good law in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs. Phool Chand, (2018) (16) SCC 567. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the Labour Court has rightly discarded the explanation furnished by the petitioner for its non-appearance when the matter was taken up for hearing. He further submitted that the other reasoning given by the Labour Court that the application was not entertainable in view of Rule 16 (2), as it was filed beyond ten days from the date of passing of the award, is also perfectly legal and valid.;