2000 Supreme(SC) 212

2000(1) Supreme 359
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. -Appellant
versus
K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19820 of 1998)
Decided on 28-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.L. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, T.G.N. Nair, K.V. Sreekumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Dilip Pillai, B.V. Deepak, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. 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. But a dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference u/s 10 I.D. Act.
2. High Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of very jurisdiction of Labour Court.

Headnote:(i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 10-Reference of dispute to Labour Court Tribunal etc.-Time limit-No time limit prescribed to exercise power u/s 10-Power cannot be exercised at any point of time to revive matters which had since been settled-A stale dispute could not be subject matter of reference u/s 10.

       A clerk of Bank was dismissed from service on proved misconduct of misappropriation of amount by falsification of accounts of Bank. After seven years he issued notice stating that two other dismissed workmen were reinstated and therefore he should also be reinstated. Though the Labour Commissioner refused pass order on the workmans conciliation petition, ultimately as a result of writ petition the Government was asked to considered the workman s application u/s 10. The Government made reference for adjudication. The Bank in writ petition sought to quash the reference which was dismissed by the Division Bench, though single Judge quashed the reference.

       Held : 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 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 lapse of about seven years of 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 industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent. (Para 6)

       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 industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become industrial dispute and appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming as industrial dispute. 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. Bank was justified in thus moving the High Court seeking an order to quash the reference in question. Therefore, the single judge was justified in quashing the reference (Para 7)

       (ii) Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 10-Reference-High Court s power to review judically order of reference-An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside is certainly subject to judicial review.

       The view that once a reference has been made under Section 10 of the Act a Labour Court has to decide the same and High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the proceedings of the Labour Court is not a correct proposition. An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside that it is certainly subject to judicial review limited though it might be. High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. (Para 8)