Greaves Cotton Ltd v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

MANMOHAN, J December 06, 2010 pk

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 30th November, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 6th December, 2010 + LPA No. 860/2010 GREAVES COTTON LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. D.R. Thandani, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Rachna Saxena, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred calling in question the legal substantiality and sustainability of the order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 4809/2007. 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the Labour Court whereby the Presiding Officer has allowed an application filed by the workman – the respondent No.3 herein, for setting aside the ex parte award passed on 1st August, 2002. As is evincible from the order impugned, a dispute arose between the workman and the management which resulted in reference of the dispute to the Labour Court for deciding the question whether the service of the workman was legally and justifiably terminated by the management and if so, then what relief he was entitled to and what directions could be necessary in that regard. After the failure of the conciliation, the matter travelled to the Labour Court and before the said Court, the workman remained absent as a consequence of which an ex parte award came to be passed on 1st August, 2002. The workman filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award on 22nd October, 2002. The Labour Court, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the ex parte award and directed the matter to be dealt with on merits. Be it noted, before the Labour Court, a contention was canvassed by the present appellant that the Labour Court had become functus officio after the award was published on 21st February, 2003 and, therefore, could not have entertained the application for setting aside the award after the said date. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Labour Court, the appellant preferred the writ petition and reiterated the contention that the Labour Court was under obligation to dismiss the application for setting aside the ex parte award as the same had already been published on 21st February, 2003 and, hence, the Labour Court had lost its jurisdiction to deal with the same. The learned Single Judge adverted to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and came to hold that the jurisdiction of the tribunal has to be seen on the date of the application made before it and, therefore, the contention that the Labour Court had become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the same for recall of the said award was unacceptable. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge concurred with the view expressed by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition. 4. Mr. D.R. Thandani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is sensitively susceptible inasmuch as if the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') is appositely understood, it would be graphically vivid that the said Court had become functus officio and, therefore, could not have entertained the application for setting aside the ex parte award or recall of the award. It is urged by him that the pendency of the application before the Labour Court is totally inconsequential for determining the jurisdiction as the acid test is the publication of the award. The lea