Close Menu
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
  • Lex Bulletin
    • Call for Papers
    • Conference
    • Essay Writing
    • News
    • Seminar
    • Moot Court
  • Lex Pedia
    • Lex Articles
    • Lex Review
  • Internships
    • Internship Experience
    • Internship Opportunities
  • Career
    • Career Advice
    • Career Opportunities
  • Courses
    • Classroom Courses
    • Distance Courses
    • Online Courses
  • International Events
  • Videos
  • Misc
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Friday, May 9
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Campus Ambassadors
  • News
  • Lex Pedia
    • Lex Articles
    • Lex Review
  • Lex Bulletin
    • Call for Papers
    • Courses
    • Career
    • Internships
    • Interviews
    • CLAT
    • MUN
  • YouTube
  • News
  • Work With Us
  • Contribute
    • Log In
LawLex.OrgLawLex.Org
Apex Court holds Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court not to be functus officio to set aside their ex parte award

Apex Court holds Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court not to be functus officio to set aside their ex parte award

0
By Gunjeet Singh on May 24, 2018 Case Analysis, Case Summary, Lex Articles, Lex Pedia, News, Study Materials
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

INTRODUCTION:

The present case “M/s . Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand” was adjudicated by a 3 judge bench of Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha on 18th May 2018. The issue for consideration was whether the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is functus officio( having no further official authority) after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 mandates the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to follow such procedure as it thinks fit. An award becomes enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication by the government. Proceedings are concluded on the day on which the award becomes enforceable.Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 provide that the Court/Tribunal can proceed ex parte in case any party fails to attend the Court/Tribunal without sufficient cause being shown.

In “Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj” (2005) 9 SCC 331 the court held that  an application for recall of an ex parte award may be entertained by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court only in case it is filed before the expiry of 30 days from the date of pronouncement or publication of the award.

In “Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H Patel and another” (2009) 2 SCC 81 the opposite view was taken by the Apex Court. To solve this confusion, this matter was referred to a larger 3 Judge Bench.

 PRECEDENTS:

In “Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others” 1980 (Supp) SCC 420 the  court observed:

“The contention that the Tribunal had become functus officio…does not commend to us. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides that the proceedings before the Tribunal would be deemed to continue till the date on which the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A“.

“…it is a well known rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice between the parties… unless there is any indication in the statute to the contrary”

“…where the Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh“.

In “Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II” (2001) 10 SCC 534 the Supreme Court  followed the Grindlays Case. In many other cases, court took the same stand and thus reaffirming the same viewpoint.

Also Read:  Case Summary: Capetown Trading Company Private Limited vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

In “Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another” (2005) 13 SCC 777 the Supreme Court observed:

“…The recall of the award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground that in passing the award the Tribunal had committed any procedural illegality or mistake…but on the ground that some matters which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not duly considered.

Apparently the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a provision in the Act”.

In “Union of India and another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd” (1990) 4 SCC 453 this Court held that the legislature has intended and has conceded certain powers to the tribunals in their assigned field of jurisdiction for meaningful exercise of their power. Such powers are implied in every tribunal unless expressly barred.

RULING:

The court in the present case observed:

“Merely because an award has become enforceable, does not necessarily mean that it has become binding. For an award to become binding, it should be passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice.“

In the light of the precedents and the Supreme Courts observations, the Apex Court ruled that the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is not functus officio after the award has become enforceable as far as setting aside an ex parte award is concerned.

This writeup is written by Gunjeet Singh Bagga.

Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer Labour Court II case analysis Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another M/s . Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand Radhakrishna Mani Tripathi v. L.H Patel and another Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj Supreme Court Union of India and another v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Call for Blogs
Call for Blogs
Support Us

Please enter a description

USD

Please enter a price

Please enter an Invoice ID

WRITE A CASE SUMMARY
CATEGORIES
Recent Posts
  • Invitation to attend International Conclave at The Hague – Legal Frameworks & Global Governance, 2-7 June 2025
  • Why “No Win, No Fee” Is a Cornerstone of Access to Justice
  • What to Do If an Insurance Company Denies Your Personal Injury Claim?
  • What Municipal Courts Serve Anniston AL
  • How to Start a Cannabis Business

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stories handpicked for you.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and won't spam you

  • Front Page
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Calendar
  • Contribute
  • Lawlex Campus Ambassadors
  • Lawlex YT Channel
  • Log In
  • Newsletter
  • Our Team
  • Privacy Policy
  • Register
  • Support Us
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Work With Us
  • Your Profile

Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. For collaborations contact mail.lawlex@gmail.com

All Rights Reserved!
  • Front Page
  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Calendar
  • Contribute
  • Lawlex Campus Ambassadors
  • Lawlex YT Channel
  • Log In
  • Newsletter
    Featured
    Recent

    Invitation to attend International Conclave at The Hague – Legal Frameworks & Global Governance, 2-7 June 2025

    Apr 17, 2025

    Why “No Win, No Fee” Is a Cornerstone of Access to Justice

    Mar 29, 2025

    What to Do If an Insurance Company Denies Your Personal Injury Claim?

    Mar 5, 2025
  • Our Team
  • Privacy Policy
  • Register
  • Support Us
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Work With Us
  • Your Profile

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.