Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29261 of 2019 Petitioner :- U P State Road Transport Corporation Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lavkush Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By the reference order taken out on 15.12.2000, the validity of the termination of the respondent workman on 30.09.1989 was framed for adjudication by the labour court.
Sri Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reference was highly belated, inasmuch as it entertained such claim after more than ten years. The petitioner employer was prejudiced beyond recall even before he entered the trial to defend his case. Evidence was irretrievably lost to time and memory due to the delay on part of the respondent workman.These facts could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent workman.
The courts have set their face against the belated references. 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 the reference itself was destructive to the 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."
In wake of the preceding discussion, the impugned award dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned labour court published on 08.03.2019 and all consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Dhananjai