Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 647
Karnataka High Court
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, hubli - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Salam - Respondent
Decided On : 10-11-01
W.A. : 4224 of 1999
L.GOVIND RAJ
Relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Headnote:
Delay in Raising Disputes - Labour Court - Shalimar Works Limited v Their workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217: 1959-II-LLJ-26; Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Prahlad Singh, 2001 (1) scc 424; Nedungadi Bank limited v. K. P. Madhavankutty and Others, air 2000 SC 839 : 2000 (2) SCC 455 : 2000-I-LLJ-561 - The court considered the delay in raising disputes and cited various judgments to support its decision. It emphasized the importance of timely reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal and ruled that relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Fact of the Case:
The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation dismissed a conductor from service in 1985, and after a delay of nine years, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Corporation challenged the award, but the single Judge dismissed the petition, leading to an intra-Court appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Labour Court erred in failing to notice the enormous delay in the reference of disputes, and on merits, it accepted the version of the workman. The Court allowed the writ appeal in favor of the Corporation, directing the Corporation not to remove the workman from service but denying back wages or continuity of service.
Issues: Delay in raising disputes, acceptance of workman's version, and reinstatement during the pendency of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of timely reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal and ruled that relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed in favor of the Corporation, with parties bearing their own costs.
( 1 ) NORTH West Karnataka Road Transport corporation is before us challenging the order datedmarch19, 1999 passed in W. P. No. 8802 of 1999.
( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as under.
( 3 ) THE North West Karnataka Road transport Corporation (for short ; "corporation") issued Articles of Charges on june 19, 1982 alleging short remittance by the 5 respondent-Conductor (for short 'workman' ). A detailed departmental proceedings were conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges. The Corporation accepting the said findings issued an order of dismissal of the workman from service on March 11, 1985. The workman filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on January 12, 1986. Thereafter the workman raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court after a lapse of nine years. Claim petition was filed by the workman and the same was contested by the corporation. Evidence was recorded before the labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the enquiry proceedings conducted by the corporation as being not fair and proper. Evidence was later recorded on merits and the labour Court subsequently in its award has accepted the reference and ordered the corporation to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages in addition to other benefits in the award dated July 1, 1997. The said award was challenged by the Corporation. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition.
( 4 ) HEARD the learned counsels on either side. Perused the material placed before this Court.
( 5 ) APPELLANTS' counsel took us through the pleadings and contended that the Labour Court has provided a relief in a belated reference. He refers to us the decisions in Executive Engineer, karnataka Electricity Board, Bagalkot v M. K. Ron and Others, 2001-I-LLJ-245 (Kant) and ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative marketing-cum-Processing Service Society limited and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260 in support of his case.
( 6 ) PER contra the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the learned judge. He refers to us the judgments in Ajaib Singh's cased (supra), Nedungadi Bank limited v. K. P. Madhavankutty and Others, air 2000 SC 839 : 2000 (2) SCC 455 : 2000-I-LLJ-561, Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Prahlad Singh, 2001 (1) scc 424; Sapan Kumar Pandit v. Uttarpradesh State Electricity Board and Others, air 2001 SC 2562 : 2001-II-LLJ-788.
( 7 ) ADMITTED facts reveal that the dismissal has taken place in the year 1985 i. e. , on March 11, 1985. Appeal filed by the workman was rejected on January 12, 1986. The workman had tried to explain the long delay of nine years in raising the dispute on the plea that he had filed revision before the Board under regulation 35 of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 which was disposed of in the year 1994. But the Labour Court on the basis of materials produced before it negatived the plea and held that the delay had remained unexplained. Despite this fact, the Labour Court not only directed for reinstatement of the respondent-workman but also rewarded him with the back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the Corporation challenged the same before this court in writ jurisdiction. But the learned single Judge dismissed the same. Hence, this intra-Court appeal.
( 8 ) THE question of delay in raising the disputes has been considered in several cases by the Apex Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Works Limited v Their workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217: 1959-II-LLJ-26 has ruled as under at p. 31 of LLJ:"it is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial Tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale, as in this case".
( 9 ) AGAIN the Supreme Court in the case of in
