An enforceable award may still be set aside where denial of hearing renders it a nullity.

Eastern Coalfields Limited (“ECL”) challenged the award dated 8 September 2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, in Reference Case No. 76 of 2006, directing compassionate appointment to private respondent no. 5.

The same reference had earlier been disposed of by a “no dispute” award dated 17 November 2009, which was published and became enforceable on 22 March 2010.

Thereafter, respondent no. 4 filed an application for setting aside that award, registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 2010. By order dated 25 June 2013, the Tribunal restored Reference Case No. 76 of 2006 and closed the Misc. Case.

The Tribunal subsequently adjudicated the reference on merits and passed the impugned award dated 8 September 2025.

ECL contended that, since the earlier award had already been published and enforced, the Tribunal had become functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to recall or reopen it.

The order dated 25 June 2013 restoring the reference was not independently challenged.

Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to recall or set aside the earlier “no dispute” award after it had been published and had become enforceable?

Whether the subsequent award dated 8 September 2025, directing compassionate appointment after restoration of the reference, was liable to be quashed?

The Court applied Sections 11, 17, 17-A and 20(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, together with Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

Under Section 11, an Industrial Tribunal possesses broad procedural and ancillary powers necessary to effectively adjudicate industrial disputes, while Rule 22 permits it to proceed ex parte only where the absent party has no sufficient cause; an award passed in breach of natural justice may consequently be set aside.

In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that proceedings before a Tribunal are deemed to continue until the award becomes enforceable under Section 17-A and that the Tribunal may set aside an ex parte award where sufficient cause is shown.

In M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand, the Supreme Court clarified that enforceability of an award does not by itself make the Tribunal functus officio; an award rendered without compliance with natural justice may be treated as a nullity, and the Tribunal may entertain an application to set it aside even after enforceability, subject to sufficient cause and reasonable time.

Although ECL relied on the publication and enforcement of the 2009 “no dispute” award to contend that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the Court considered the governing principle that enforceability alone does not foreclose the Tribunal’s power to address an award alleged to have been made without a proper opportunity of hearing or in breach of natural justice.

The Tribunal’s order dated 25 June 2013 restoring the reference had never been challenged and therefore could not effectively be assailed collaterally in the writ petition against the final award.

Having restored the reference, the Tribunal considered the applicable NCWA provisions and the claimant’s eligibility on the evidence before it.

The High Court found no jurisdictional or legal error in that merits adjudication warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

WPA 9451 of 2026 was accordingly dismissed.

All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.