Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22988 of 2021 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Labour Court And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreeprakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Jamal Ahmad Khan
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The services of the petitioners were terminated on 15.07.1996. Reference of the industrial dispute was made on 04.06.2010. The belated reference prejudiced the case of the State even before they entered the trial before the labour court. Evidence was lost to time and memory because of inordinate and inexplicable delay in making the reference. The narrative shall be reinforced by authorities in point.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent workman, the cause for the laches could not be satisfactorily explained. Lawful course of action for the respondent workman is to invoke statutory remedy without delay. After long years of interactive by correspondence with the department made in 2003, will not be of any avail to the workman.
The Supreme Court has set its face against belated references as such references defeat the purpose of the Act and do not contribute the industrial peace.
In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and others, reported at (2000) 2 SCC 455, while determining the consequences of a delayed reference, it was held that such reference itself was destructive of industrial peace:
"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.
7. In the present appeal it is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his dismissal, were in any way illegal or there was even any irregularity. He availed his remedy of appeal under the rules governing his conditions of service. It could not be said that in the circumstances an industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after a lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming it as an industrial dispute. The Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under Section 10 of the Act and there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. The purpose of reference is to keep industrial peace in an establishment. The present reference is destructive to the industrial peace and defeats the very object and purpose of the Act. The Bank was justified in thus moving the High Court seeking an order to quash the reference in question."
More recently learned Single Judge of this Court Hon'ble J. J. Munir, J. in State of U.P. and another Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another, reported at 2021 (7) ADJ 670, has dealt with the issue in a scholarly fashion and has held that inordinate delay in making a reference is being fatal to the cause for the workman.
The judgements relied upon by Shri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent workman do not lay down an absolute proposition of law that a reference made after inordinate delay has to be mandatorily entertained.
In wake of the preceding discussion, the impugned award dated 21.12.2020 passed by the learned labour court published on 27.02.2021 and all consequential orders are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Dhananjai