Pradeep Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner -CMPDI by this writ application has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writ(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.6.2005 passed by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad in Miscellaneous No. 3 arising out of Reference Case No. 9/1994 whereby the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. II has recalled the ex parte Award passed on 31.3.2003 after publication in the official Gazette and when the court became functus officio; and for issuing another writ or writs as may be deem fit and proper. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal reported in : 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420 that the Industrial Tribunal has an inherent power to set aside an ex -parte award subject of course to the condition that the same has not been published in the Gazette and the same has also been followed in the case of Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj reported in : (2005)9 SCC 331. It is further submitted that in Sangham Tape Company also it was held that it has been laid down in the case of Grindlays Bank that "such jurisdiction could be exercised by the Labour Court after thirty days. It was held that once an award becomes enforceable in terms of Section 17A of the Act, the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, does not retain any jurisdiction in relation to setting aside of an award and as such the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be quashed."
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that both the judgments relied on by the Petitioner, are not applicable in the instant case since in the instant case the application for setting aside the award was filed within 30 days of the ex -parte award passed by the Tribunal. It will appear from the impugned order dated 8.6.2005 itself that the award was passed in Reference Case No. 9/94 vide Order No. 30 dated 31.3.2003 and just after three days the petition for setting aside the said order and recalling the same was filed on 3.4.2003, therefore, the case relied upon by the Petitioner is not applicable.;