An industrial tribunal may set aside an ex parte award before it becomes enforceable.

The petitioner, a Medical Representative employed by respondent no. 2, challenged an order of the 9th Industrial Tribunal setting aside an ex parte award directing his reinstatement with full back wages.

The award was made on 17 December 2024 and published on 27 January 2025. Respondent no. 2 received it on 10 February 2025 and applied to set it aside on 17 February 2025.

The petitioner argued that the Tribunal lacked power to entertain the application; respondent no. 2 contended that it had applied within the period during which the award had not yet become enforceable.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside the ex parte award before it became enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the ex parte award warranted interference in the writ petition.

Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that an award ordinarily becomes enforceable 30 days after publication; under Section 20(3), proceedings before the Tribunal are deemed to continue until the award becomes enforceable.

In Grindlays Bank, the Supreme Court held that a Tribunal may set aside an ex parte award for sufficient cause as an exercise of procedural, incidental power, and retains jurisdiction over the dispute until the award becomes enforceable; jurisdiction is assessed as of the date the application is made.

The Court also referred to Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, applying it alongside Section 17A.

The application to set aside the award was filed on 17 February 2025, within 30 days of its publication on 27 January 2025.

Applying Sections 17A and 20(3), and the principle in Grindlays Bank, the Court held that the Tribunal’s proceedings had not yet concluded when the application was filed and that the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to entertain it.

The Court accordingly found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s order.

The writ petition was dismissed, and any connected applications were disposed of.