important points
Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes is limited to the points mentioned in Section 10(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The Industrial Tribunal cannot strike down the reference on ground of delay.
Violation of section 25-F by employer makes the termination order bad in law and entitles worker to relief.

Headnote:(a)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes is limited to the points mentioned in Section 10(4).(Para 8)
       AIR 1963 SC 569 – Relied upon.
       (b)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – If the employer says that the workman has made a stale claim then it must challenge the reference by way of Writ petition on the ground of delay and deny existence of industrial dispute – The Industrial Tribunal cannot strike down the reference on this ground.(Para 9)
       (2000) 1SCC 371 – Relied upon.
       (c)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F – If the Tribunal records a finding of violation of Section 25-F by the employer, it should strike down the termination order as being bad in law – However it is not proper to strike down the termination order and not grant any relief, on ground of delay.(Para 9)
       (2000) 1 SCC 371 – Relied upon.
       (d)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Delay in raising a dispute may be fatal in absence of plausible and acceptable explanation – However it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.(Paras 11 and 15)
       (2001) 6 SCC 222; (2000 (2) SCC 455; (2003) 4 SCC 27; (2006) 1 Supreme 282; (2006) 9 SCC 124 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant was appointed as DPL in August 1993 and worked up to October 1994. According to the appellant his services were terminated without any charge sheet or holding any enquiry though he had worked for more than 240 days. In that context it was contended that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. He had prayed for re-instatement with full back wages along with all consequential benefits.
       Labour Court took the view that the claim was highly belated. The appellant was therefore held not to be entitled to any relief.
       Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the demand notice had been raised after six years.
       Findings of the Court:
       Tribunal and the High Court acted beyond jurisdiction in striking down the reference on ground of delay.
       Result : Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.

judgment

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the decision rendered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar.

3.The reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government of Haryana in terms of Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) was answered in favour of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) holding that the claim was highly belated and therefore dis-entitled the appellant from any relief.

4.A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

“The appellant was appointed as DPL in August 1993 and worked upto October 1994. According to the appellant his services were terminated without any charge sheet or holding any enquiry though he had worked for more than 240 days. In that context it was contended that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. He had prayed for re-instatement with full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits. The claimant who was examined as WW-1 had stated that he had joined the respondent-Board as DPL on 1.8.1993 and was getting Rs.1120/- p.m. and had worked till October 1994 continuously when his services were terminated. Grievance was made that the workers junior to him had been regularized and a departure was made in his case.

The respondent-Board took the stand that the services of the claimant were required as DPL as and when required and he had really not completed 240 days. A stand was taken that the claim was highly belated. It is to be noted that in the cross examination appellant had admitted that he had no proof of having worked from August 1993 to October 1994. The claim petition was filed in the year 2000. The notice dated 6.6.2000 was the first one and on failure of conciliation, reference was made on 8.2.2001. The appellant should have explained inaction on his part. Labour Court took the view that the claim was highly belated. If the appellant felt that the order of termination was illegal without following due procedure, he should have come up with demand notice within a reasonable time. It was held that though no limitation is prescribed, but it would be unequitable to re-open the closed chapter after a long time. The appellant was therefore held not to be entitled to any relief.

Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the demand notice had been raised after six years.”

5.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there being no period of limitation prescribed and at the most the relief could have been moulded instead of rejecting the claim.

6.Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the High Court.

7.In the appeal the main issue which arises for determination is as follows :

“Whether the reference of the Petitioner/workman could be rejected on the sole ground of delay when Government itself made reference for adjudication of the issue/dispute.”

8.In the case of Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. v. The Workers and Ors.,1 reported in (AIR 1963 SC 569) it has been held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes is limited to the points mentioned in Section 10(4).

9.In the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,2 (2000) 1 SCC 371) it has been held vide para 24 that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10. This is because existence of the industrial dispute is a jurisdictional fact. Absence of such jurisdictional fact results in the invalidation of the reference. For example, even under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood earlier, the Income Tax Officer must h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1254

Cases Referred (10)