1. Employee dismissed for misconduct — Dispute over jurisdiction of Labour Court — Application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : S.N.Phukan
Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Versus
Andclingaiah
Case No. : 7799 of 1997
Date of Decision : 9/23/99
In cases of prolonged litigation over employment disputes, the court may direct the appropriate forum to decide the matter on merits, bypassing technical objections such as res judicata or delay to ensure justice is delivered after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2-A sub-section (2) - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Dismissal from service - Dispute pending for over a decade - Matter referred to Central Labour Court to be decided on merits - Technical grounds such as res judicata or delay in filing to be ignored in view of the prolonged litigation history. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed from service of a Central Government company following a domestic inquiry. After unsuccessful internal appeals and a withdrawn writ petition, the employee approached the State Labour Court. The State Labour Court dismissed the dispute for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the Central Government was the appropriate authority. The High Court subsequently remanded the matter back to the State Labour Court, holding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that more than twelve years had elapsed since the dismissal without any forum deciding the dispute on its merits. To resolve the impasse and avoid further delay, the court modified the impugned order to direct the dispute to be adjudicated by the Central Labour Court.
Issues: Whether the dispute regarding the dismissal of an employee of a Central Government company should be adjudicated by the State Labour Court or the Central Labour Court, and whether technical objections should bar the hearing given the history of the litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of prolonged litigation where an employee has been shifted between forums without a decision on merits, the court may direct the appropriate forum to decide the matter on merits, specifically instructing that technical grounds like res judicata or delay should not be considered to ensure the dispute is resolved. (Paras 5, 7)
Result: Civil appeal disposed of; dispute referred to the Central Labour Court for adjudication on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the State Labour Court or Central Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute regarding dismissal. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
3. Prolonged litigation without merit-based resolution necessitates directing the dispute to the appropriate forum to ensure justice regardless of technicalities. (Para 2 , 5 , 7 )
4. In cases of prolonged jurisdictional disputes, the matter should be referred to the appropriate forum for adjudication on merits, disregarding technical grounds like res judicata or delay. (Para 5 , 7 )
5. Appeal modified; dispute referred to the Central Labour Court for adjudication on merits, disregarding res judicata or delay. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
6. Which forum is appropriate for adjudicating disputes involving a Central Government company administered by state authorities?
The court directed the dispute to the Central Labour Court, indicating it is the appropriate forum for such entities. (Para 1 , 5 )
7. Can technical grounds like res judicata or delay bar the adjudication of an industrial dispute on its merits?
No, especially when prolonged litigation has prevented any forum from deciding the dispute on merits; the court may direct the appropriate forum to ignore such technicalities. (Para 7 )
8. Does the court's direction to file under Section 2-A(2) of the Act imply the validity of state amendments for Central Government companies?
The court specifically declined to decide the wider question of the applicability of the state amendment to Section 2-A(2) for such companies. (Para 5 )
S.N.PHUKAN, J.
(1) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that on the peculiar facts of this case Respondent 1 seems to have been tossed from pillar to post. Respondent 1 was working the relevant time in 1986 as badli filler mazdoor) with the appellant Company, which adimittedly is a Central Government company, though administered by the State authorities. Respondent 1 was charge-sheeted on 10/11/1986 for alleged misconduct and after domestic inquiry was dismissed from service on 13/5/1987. His appeal to the General Manager failed. Thereafter he directly approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in writ petition. He was permitted to withdraw the writ petition presumably because he could not move the High Court directly but had remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). Then he went to the State Labour Court at Hyderabad under Section 2-A sub-section (2) of the State amendment to the Act. The State Labour Court by an order dated 12/11/1992 dismissed the industrial dispute on the ground that it had no jurisdiction as the appropriate Government in this case was the Central Government. Respondent 1, once again went to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. A learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16/12/1996 remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision to the Labour Court taking the view that res judicata had no application to the present case. It was obviously a remand to the State Labour Court. The learned single Judge also observed that the State Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and thereafter on obtaining leave to appeal before us.
(2) THE chequered history of this litigation between the parties uptill now shows that even though more than 12 years have elapsed since the dismissal of Respondent 1 from the service of the appellant Company, no forum has been found to decide his dispute on its merits.
(3) WE, therefore suggested to the learned counsel for the appellant that if the order appeal is modified and tlie dispute is directed to be resolved by the Central Labour Court functioning in Hyderabad under the Act, any objection would survive for the appellant. He fairly stated that he would like to have the dispute decided by the Central Labour Court on merits, looking to the chequered history of this litigation.
(4) LEARNED counsel for Respondent 1 also fairly stated that if there is a forum available to adjudicate his dispute at Hyderabad he will also have to (sic no) objection.
(5) WE, therefore, without going into the wider question about the applicability of Section 2-A sub-section (2) of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature and whether under the said amended provision a direct application would lie to the State Labour Court by an employee of a company like the appellant, modify the impugned order of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the dispute of Respondent 1 centering round his alleged dismissal dated 13/5/1987 shall be adjudicated upon by the Central Labour Court functioning at Hyderabad, on merits after hearing them at its earliest convenience looking to the long period of more than a decade that has elapsed since the dispute against dismissal was raised.
(6) PURSUANT to the present order Respondent 1 will be entitled to tile appropriate application under Section 2-A sub-section (2) of the Act, before the Central Labour Court at Hyderabad within three months from today, Once Respondent 1 files appropriate: application, as aforesaid, before the Central Labour Court at Hyderabad, the said Court shall see to it that the proceedings are decided on merits after hearing the parties at the earliest and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such application.
(7) WE make it clear that the Central Labour Court shall decide th
