Nagar Palika Parishad, Aligarh and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and Another

Amreshwar Pratap Saw, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Srivastava and Sri M.P.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the respondent.

The Nagar Palika Parishad, Aligarh has come up against the rejection of the application for setting aside the ex-parte award contending that even though the award was published on 6th March, 1997, it was dispatched on 14th July 1997, and as such the application has been filed within 30 days i.e. on 5th August 1997. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the application having been filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge, the refusal by the Labour Court to set aside the ex-parte award on this ground is erroneous.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the previous occasion on 29th March, 2012 submitted that the date of knowledge is immaterial and reliance was placed on three decisions to contend that the Court of reference become functus officio after the expiry of 30 days as such it had no authority to entertain an application for setting aside the ex-parte award.

The Court, accordingly, framed the question vide order dated 29th March, 2012 reproduced hereinunder:--

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on three decisions namely "State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut, 2005 (105) FLR Pg. 391, Nagar Panchayat Kithore, Meerut v. Presiding Officer, 2007 Vol. 2 L.B.ES.R. 321, and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of; Sangam Tape Company v. Hans Raj, 2004 (103) FLR 699, reported in 2004 (103) FLR Pg. 699 to contend that the date of knowledge is immaterial and it is the period prescribed in the provisions which is mandatory as the Labour Court being a court of reference becomes functus officio after 30 days of the publication of the award and as such it has no jurisdiction to entertain the application to set aside an ex parte award. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to study the matter. List in the next cause list".

Today learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the award itself was dispatched on 14th July, 1997, therefore, the limitation has to be counted from the date of dispatch, if a date of knowledge is presumed to be thereafter.

The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as there is no disclosure of the date of receipt of notice of the said award by the petitioner. In the circumstances this plea cannot advance the cause of the petitioner inasmuch as even presuming for the sake of arguments that the award was dispatched on 14th July, 1997, in the absence of any such disclosure the matter would not proceed any further. The award was published on 6th March, 1997.

The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent squarely answers the aforesaid proposition where it has been held that the date of knowledge is immaterial and 30 days has to be counted from the date of publication of award. What is relevant is that the Labour Court becomes disqualified as it is functus officio after 30 days of the publication of the award to entertain a recall application. Even presuming for the sake of arguments that it was dispatched later on, the situation does not improve any further. In view of the reasonings given in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, there is no merit in this petition and is, accordingly, dismissed.