Full Text
W. P. (C) 7251/2011
SHARAFAT KHAN Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.
Industrial Tribunal ^Tribunal') in ID No. 118 of 2007 closing the workman's evidence as well as that of the management and placing the case for pronouncement of award on conclusion of the arguments. The
Petitioner also challenges the impugned Award dated 31^' May 2008 whereby the Tribunal rejected the Petitioner workman's claim that he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Lower Division Clerk (TDC) with effect from 1^^ April 1988. The Petitioner further challenges an order dated 3"^ May 2011 passed by the Tribunal dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner (Miscl. No. 22 of 2010) for setting aside the order dated
13"^ May 2008 and Award dated 31^^ May 2008.
ORDER
2. The ground urged before the Tribunal seeking recall of the order dated 13"^ May 2008 was that the workman was not informed by either the fV. p. (C) No. 7251/2011 Page 1 of[3] 2011:DHC:16047 General Secretary of the Union of which the workman is a member, and who was authorized by the workman to appear in the proceedings, or by the advocate for the workman that his presence was required before the Labour Court. However, the workman failed to explain why he waited for more than two years after the passing of the Award to approach the Labour Court. The Tribunal noticed that the Award had been published on 24"" December 2008 and came into effect on January 2009 and an application for recall ofthe said order had been filed only on IS'*" August 2010, i.e., admittedly long after the expiry of the thirty days from the publication of the award. Referring to Section 17A of the ID Act, the Tribunal observed that afterthe expiry of thirty days after the publication of the award, the Tribunal becamefunctus officio and could not entertain any application.
3. Mr. Rajiv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioner did not attempt to dispute the above legal position but submitted that this application was more in the nature ofa plea by the workmanfor mercy.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this request. No satisfactory explanation was given by the Petitioner for waiting for more than one and half years after the publication of the Award to seek its recall. The Tribunal has correctly applied Section 17A ofthe ID Act and its impugned order dated 3'"'' May
5. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed as such.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 a kg
S. MURALIDHAR, J.