HARENDRA DUBEY Vs. KRLSHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI MAHARAJGANJ

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.