TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Respondent herein, was allowed. FACTS: 2. The Respondent was appointed as a Machine man by the Appellant in 1980. The Appellant contended that the Respondent had been absenting from duties off and on but he had been allowed to join his duties in different periods. On about 09.11.1991, a complaint petition was filed by him through the trade union before the Labour Inspector Circle III Jalandhar on an allegation that the management had not provided him and other similarly situated persons duties since 8.11.1991. The said complaint was registered as Ref. No. 87/91 wherein a settlement was arrived at, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the Respondent is said to have received a sum of ₹ 2675.70 in full and final settlem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court cannot be limited to a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the award. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on Anil Sood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II. 6. An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. The rules framed under the Act may provide for applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the industrial adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 thereof would be attracted. But unlike an ordinary Civil Court, the Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the dispute referred to it for adjudication and up to that date it has the power to entertain an application in connection with such dispute. That stage is not reached till the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A. In the instant case, the Tribunal made the ex parte award on December 9, 1976. That award was published by the Central Government in the Gazette of India dated December 25, 1976. The application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed by respondent 3, acting on behalf of respondents 5 to 17 on January 19, 1977 i.e., before the expiry of 30 days of its publication and was, therefore, rightly entertained by the Tribunal 8. The said decision is, therefore, an authority for the proposition that while an Industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the contrary. The contention raised on the part of Mr. Jain to the effect that in fact in that case an application for setting aside an award was made long after 30 days cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, a fact situation obtaining in one case cannot be said to be a precedent for another. [See Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra -2004CriLJ1359 ]. Secondly, from a perusal of the said decision, it does not appear that any date of publication of the award was mentioned therein so as to establish that even on fact, the application was made 30 days after the expiry of publication of the award. Furthermore, the said decision appears to have been rendered on concession. 13. For the foregoing reasons, there is no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
