1. Reference under Industrial Disputes Act dismissed as withdrawn/infructuous — High Court set aside and ordered restoration — Supreme Court directs compliance. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2015 Supreme(SC) 1766
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Gurjant Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25233 Of 2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/07/2013 in LPA No. 172 Of 2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
Decided On : 14-10-2015
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pramod Kohli, Sr. Adv., Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv., Mr. Vikas Gupta, Adv., Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv., MR. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv., Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv., MS. Reeta Dewan, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pramod Kohli, Sr. Adv., Mr. J.S. Attri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv., Mr. Vikas Gupta, Adv., Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv., MR. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Adv., Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv., MS. Reeta Dewan, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv.
An order to maintain status quo regarding the service of employees does not prevent a lower court from proceeding with the case; it specifically ensures that services are not terminated without the court's prior permission.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Restoration of reference - Order of Labour Court dismissing references as withdrawn/infructuous set aside by High Court - Reference restored to original number - Appellants entitled to supplement references with subsequent events, while respondents entitled to take all factual and legal pleas. (Para 1)
(B) Order of status quo - Direction to maintain status quo regarding service of petitioners pending further orders does not prevent the Labour Court from taking proceedings further and concluding the same. (Para 2)
(C) Interpretation of status quo - Order to maintain status quo regarding service to be understood as a restriction that services of the petitioners shall not be terminated without the permission of the Court. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Labour Court dismissed references as withdrawn and infructuous. The High Court set aside this order and directed the restoration of proceedings and their expedited disposal. Despite these directions, the proceedings failed to progress. Additionally, the Supreme Court had issued an interim order for the parties to maintain status quo regarding the service of the petitioners.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the status quo order did not bar the Labour Court from concluding the proceedings in accordance with the High Court's directions. It further clarified that the status quo regarding service specifically meant that termination could not occur without the permission of the Court.
Issues: Whether the status quo order regarding service precluded the progress of proceedings before the Labour Court and the specific legal effect of such a status quo order on the employment of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: An order to maintain status quo regarding employee service during the pendency of proceedings protects the employees from termination without court approval but does not stay or prevent the lower court from proceeding with the adjudication of the case.
Result: Labour Court directed to conclude proceedings within six months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Status quo order did not prevent Labour Court from proceeding; proceedings have not progressed; no reason not to recommence. (Para 2 )
3. An interim status quo order concerning service does not prevent the Labour Court from continuing proceedings on the reference. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Labour Court directed to proceed in accordance with High Court's order and conclude within six months; earlier order clarified. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Does a status quo order regarding service bar the Labour Court from proceeding with the reference?
No, the status quo order only meant that services shall not be terminated without permission; it did not prevent the Labour Court from continuing proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER :
The High Court has by the impugned order not only set-aside order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the Labour Court dismissing the reference as withdrawn/infrcutuous but also directed the Labour Court to restore the reference to its original number and commence the proceedings on the same from the stage at which the same were dismissed. The High Court has further held that the appellant would be entitled to supplement their references with subsequent events referred to in the impugned order. At the same time, the respondents have been allowed to take all factual and legal pleas available to them before the Labour Court who shall then decide all those questions in accordance with law. The High Court has further directed the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, Patiala to expedite the disposal of the reference. For facility of reference we may extract the operative portion of the order passed by the Labour Court:
Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent that the orders like dated 07.12.2007 whereby the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the appellants were dismissed as withdrawn being infructuous, are set-aside. The resultant effect would be that the Labour Court shall restore the reference(s) to their original number and file and shall commence the proceedings from the stage of their dismissal “as withdrawn. While the appellants would be entitled to supplement their references with the subsequent events noticed above, the respondents shall also be entitled to take all the factual and legal pleas before the Labour Court who shall then decide those questions in accordance with law. We also direct the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Patiala to expedite the disposal of reference(s) as early as possible but not later than one year from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The order of the learned Single Judge stands modified accordingly.
2. By our Order dated 30.09.2013, we had while issuing notice in the special leave petition directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding service of the petitioners pending further orders. This order by no means prevented the Labour Court from taking the proceedings further and concluding the same in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court. Unfortunately however for some reason or the other, the proceedings have not made any progress whatsoever. We see no reason why the proceedings should not be recommenced in terms of the order passed by the High Court and concluded as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of six months form the date a copy of this order is filed before the Labour Court by learned counsel for the parties.
3. We accordingly direct the Labour Court to take up the proceedings strictly in accordance with the observations made by the High Court in para 13 extracted above and to conclude the same expeditiously. A copy of the award which the Labour Court may make shall be filed before this Court on the next date of hearing. These proceedings shall in the meantime stand over, to be listed again in the month of May, 2016. We make it clear that the order passed by us on 30.09.2013 shall be understood to only mean that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated by the respondent without the permission of this Court.
