Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25728 of 2002 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Its Regional Manager Meerut Respondent :- Ram Swarup And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Mishra,J.N. Singh,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Sharma,H.N.Sharma,Maqbool Ahmad
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-workman and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. The services of the respondent No.1-workman were terminated on 01.04.1984. Reference of the industrial dispute was made on 13.03.2001.
3. I see merit in the submission of Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was belated and barred by delay and laches. The petitioner-employer has been prejudiced beyond recall even before it joined the trial. Evidence was lost to time and memory because of inordinate and inexplicable delay on part of the respondent No.1-workman. No industrial dispute was existing when the reference was made.
4. The cause of delay and laches could not be satisfactorily explained on behalf of the workman.
Lawful course of action for the respondent No.1- workman is to invoke statutory remedy without delay.
5. Constitutional Courts have set their face against belated references. Delayed references defeat the purpose of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and do not contribute to 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."
6. More recently 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.
7. On account of the delayed reference, the impugned award dated 28.08.2001 is vitiated and unsustainable in law.
8. In wake of the preceding discussion, the impugned award dated 28.08.2001 passed by the respondent No.2/learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun published on 01.02.2002, and all consequential orders are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
9. This Court has not gone into the issue of jurisdiction since the matter is being decided on the delay and laches.
10. The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi