Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) WHETHER an application for setting aside on ex parte award made by a Labour Court on a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) filed after, the expiry of 30 days of the publication of the award under Section 17 of the Act is competent in the face of clear language of Section 20(3) of the Act" is the pristinely legal issue, raised in this Letters Patent Appeal. The legality and validity of the ex parte award dated 3rd June, 1984 of the Labour Court is also sought to be challenged.
(2.) A broad -brush factual back -drop will help illumine the contours of the forensic controversy; The Applicant -society terminated the services of its Secretary Harjit Singh, Respondent No. 3, on June 12th, 1981 because he had acted prejudicially to the interest of the society and his continuance in service was not considered to be in the interest of the Society. Harjit Singh raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Act. Harjit Singh, the workman, appeared before the Labour Court, Bha -tinda. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the Appellant -Society. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that service had been effected on the Society. It took ex parte proceedings and ultimately passed an ex parte award on June 3, 1984, accepting the reference and quashing the orders of termination of service of Respondent No. 3. This award was published in the Gazette on June 22. 1984. The Appellant -Society moved an application on September 24, 1984, before the Labour Court seeking the setting aside of the ex parte award. It was pleaded therein that in December, 1983, the Managing Committee of the Society ceased to function and an Administrator was appointed in its place. The workman played a fraud and got the summons issued by the Labour Court delivered on a person, who was not competent to receive the same on behalf of. the Appellant -Society. The Administrator of the Society did not receive any summons and was not served in any manner. The Administrator came to know about the ex parte award on September 21, 1984, when Harjit Singh visited the Society's Office and apprised the Administrator about the award and sought his permission to join duty.
(3.) THE Labour Court, - -vide his orders dated December 13, 1984, dismissed the application. It held that the application had been filed after the expiry of more than 30 days of the publication of the award. It had become functus officio. The application was incompetent, Aggrieved the Appellant -society filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1 of 1985 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugning the ex parte award and the order of the Labour Court dated December 13, 1984. The learned Single Judge upheld the orders of the Labour Court dismissing the Appellant -Society's application as incompetent and dismissed the writ petition. Still undaunted, the Appellant -Society has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal.;