Labour Court Can Extend Time For Compliance Of Award Even After It Becomes Enforceable Under Section 17A ID Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a Labour Court retain the powers to extend time for compliance with their awards, even after the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice Gopinath P while dismissing a writ petition observed that the Labour Court does not become functus officio merely because 30 days have elapsed from the publication of its award.

For context, functus officio refers to an officer or agency whose mandate has expired, due to either the arrival of an expiry date or an agency having accomplished the purpose for which it was created.

The petitioner, a pharmacist employed in a Neethi Medical Store run by the respondent Bank, was dismissed from service in November 2012 following disciplinary proceedings. She challenged the dismissal under Section 2A(2) of the ID Act before the Labour Court, Kollam.

The Labour Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings by an award dated September 29, 2023, and permitted the management to initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of charge memo. The Labour Court directed that the fresh proceedings be completed within three months. Failing this, the management was to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.

The management sought extension of time, contending that the award was made available to it only on December 19, 2023. By order dated June 28, 2024, the Labour Court granted an additional one and a half months to complete the proceedings. This extension was challenged before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that once the award became enforceable under Section 17A, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to modify, clarify, or extend time, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jammu Tehsil v. Hakumar Singh [(2006) 12 SCC 193].

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. v. Phool Chand [(2018) 16 SCC 567] has held that the Tribunal/ Labour Court functioning under the provisions of the I D Act, had all incidental and ancillary powers and could entertain applications even beyond the period of 30 days and after the award became enforceable in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 17A of the I.D. Act.

The Court noted that although Haryana Suraj Malting concerned setting aside an ex parte award, the principle could not be confined narrowly to that context.

“However, I find no authority to hold that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Tribunal should be restricted to applications for setting aside the ex parte order. Such jurisdiction must, by necessary implication, extend to other matters even after the period of 30 days prescribed in Section 17A of the I.D Act.” Court noted

The Court relied on several precedents on incidental powers of tribunals including ITO v M K Mohd. Kunhi [(1969) 71 ITR 815] which recognised the implied powers necessary to make statutory jurisdiction effective.

The Court noted that though Section 148 CPC which deals with the enlargement of time is not expressly made applicable to Labour Courts under Section 11(3) of the ID Act, the absence of express incorporation does not negate the inherent or incidental powers necessary for effective adjudication.

“The Labour Courts/Tribunals could exercise the jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Code to enlarge time when a time limit within which a certain act had to be done or completed was fixed in the award.” Court held

The Court emphasized that unless the statute contains an express prohibition, tribunals retain procedural flexibility to ensure justice.

“In the absence of any express provision in the I.D. Act prohibiting the extension of time after the period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the award, I must hold that such power is always available to the Labour Court/Tribunal functioning under the provisions of the I.D. Act” Court held.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: I Bindhu v Thiruvanathanpuram Service Co-Operative Bank and Anr

Case No: WP(C) 25229/ 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

Counsel for Petitioner: Gopakumar R Thaliyil, M S Vijayachandran Ababu, R B Balachandran, Jithu S Babu

Counsel for Respondent: N Anand, T L Sreeram, Rajesh O N, Roy Antony