- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The services of the petitioners in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Garaura at Nichlaul, District Mahrajganj, were terminated on 24. 7. 1987, which was challenged by means of a writ petition, wherein the petitioners were directed to ap proach the Labour Court while the same was dismissed. Accordingly on 15. 4. 1989 a dispute was raised and the same was referred to the Labour Court, which had passed the award on 17. 9. 1992 re-instating the workmen with back wages. The said award was published on 23. 10. 1992 and copy thereof was sent to the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad on 29. 10. 1992. The Parishad moved writ petition no. 45492 of 1992 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 45494 of 1992 against the said award. However, no order of stay was granted in either of the said two writ petitions. The Parishad alleged that it came to be learn about the said Award only on 19. 1. 1993 and thereupon it filed application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said Award on 30. 1. 1993. The said applica tion was allowed by the Labour Court on 15. 9. 1993. It is against this order the present writ petition has been moved.
(2.) CHALLENGING the said order dated 15. 9. 1993, learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that in view of Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the award had become final on the expiry of thirty days from the date of publication of the award, which was admittedly published no 23. 10. 1992. The said application for set ting aside the award could be maintained before the expiry of the said thirty days. By no stretch of imagination the said applica tion can be made after the award had be come final. His second contention was that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, the Labour Court could set aside the award if within ten days of publication of the said award the party had applied for setting aside the same showing sufficient cause for his absence. Section 174 of the Act has been dealt in Grind lay Bank Limited v. Central Govern ment Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1981 SC 606; 1981 LIC-155 and in the said case it was held that the Tribunal had power to pass order of restoration, it is though fit in the interest of justice, though admittedly there is no expressed provision in the Act or the Rules framed there under giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. It is well known rule of statutory construction that the Tribunal or body should be considered to be embodied with such ancillary powers as are necessary to discharge the functions effectively for the purposes of doing justice between the parties. The said observation was made on the strength of sub- section (1) of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as incorporated by S. 9 of the Industrial Disputes (Amend, and Misc. Provisions) Act, 1956 which provides that subject to any rule, that may ; be made in this behalf a Tribunal shall follow such procedure as it may think fit. The Tribunals, though are not courts but has a trappings of court when it exercises quasi judicial functions. It was further held in the said case that where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient cause and is faced with ex-pane award it is as if the party has visited that award without notice, However, Supreme Court in the said case though accepted that the Tribunal can prevent the abuse of its process and correct itself by act debito justitia and, such power in heres in it. But the Tribunal become officio and had no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-pane award as soon as the award become enforceable under Section 17-A of the Act. It was laid down, "the proceedings with regard to reference under Section 10 of the Act, are, therefore, not deemed to be con cluded until expiry of thirty days from publi cation of the award. Till then the Tribunal retains jurisdiction over the dispute, referred to it, for adjudication and up to that date it has power to entertain the applica tion in connection with such dispute. That stage is not reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A of the Act.
(3.) IN the present case application for setting aside ex-pane award was made on 30. 1. 1993 while the award was published on 23. 10. 1992 namely, long after expiry of thir ty days from publication of the award. Therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the same in view of the ratio decided in the case of Grind leys Bank Limited (supra ). Therefore, the order dated 15. 9. 1993 impugned in the present writ peti tion, being annexure-6 to the writ petition cannot be sustained and, as such is quashed. Accordingly a writ of certiorari do issue The writ petition is as such allowed. This order, however, shall not prevent the Respondent from challenging the award at appropriate forum. Writ Petition allowed .;