Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Central Bus Depot - Petitioner
Versus
Subhash Mahadev Desai - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5980 of 2019 With Interim Application No. 19213 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Industrial Dispute - Delay in Raising Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) - Section 10
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, a Bus Driver, was dismissed from service in 1998 following an accident. He raised a grievance in 2014, leading to a Reference to the Labour Court, which directed his reinstatement with backwages. The Petitioner challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the delay of 13 years in raising the dispute to be fatal, as the Respondent failed to challenge the dismissal for a significant period. The Court held that the delay prejudiced the Petitioner's defense and awarded relief to the Respondent despite the long delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in raising the industrial dispute affected the validity of the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the Respondent and award backwages.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while Section 10 of the I.D. Act does not specify a limitation period for raising industrial disputes, delay in raising a dispute can prejudice the opposing party and impact the availability of evidence. The Court cited precedents emphasizing the need for reasonable and timely resolution of industrial disputes.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Labour Court's decision, finding the delay in raising the dispute to be fatal and ruling in favor of the Petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has filed this petition challenging the Award dated 26 March 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Kolhapur in Reference (IDA) No. 65 of 2014. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has partly answered the Reference in affirmative and has set aside the Order dated 16 March 1998 dismissing the Respondent from service. The Labour Court has directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent in service alongwith continuity and consequential benefits. The Labour Court has further directed payment of 30% backwages to the Respondent from 16 March 1998 till the date of reinstatement.
2. The Respondent was employed as a Bus Driver with the Petitioner-Transport Corporation and was deputed to drive the Bus on Belgaum-Kolhapur route on 9 November 1996. Apparently, an accident took place while the Respondent was driving the bus, which dashed against a private bus resulting in some damage to the bus. It is alleged that when Respondent approached the Police Station to report the accident, a private settlement took place between the Respondent and owner of the private bus. The owner of the private bus showed willingness to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages suffered to the Petitioner’s bus. It is the case of the Respondent that the said amount received from private bus owner was duly deposited by him with the Kolhapur Depot. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent by issuance of Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 15 November 1996. In the domestic enquiry, Respondent was found guilty and by Order dated 16 March 1998, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him. The First Appeal and Second Appeal preferred by the Respondent against the order of dismissal were rejected, last order being passed on 16 March 2001. Respondent apparently did not agitate the matter further and it is the case of the Petitioner that the matter attained quietus.
3. Respondent approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner raising a grievance about his dismissal on 13 March 2014 and a Reference was made to the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, which was numbered as Reference (IDA) No. 65 of 2014. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has partly answered the Reference in the affirmative and has set aside the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on Respondent and has directed his reinstatement with continuity in service, consequential benefits and 30% backwages. The Petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the Labour Court’s decision and has filed the present petition.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Corporation would submit that the Labour Court ought to have dismissed the Reference on the ground of gross and inordinate delay. That no industrial dispute existed as on the date of making the order of reference. That the Respondent had acquiesced in the dismissal order as he failed to adopt any proceedings after rejection of his Second Appeal on 16 March 2001. That the delay of 13 years resulted in serious prejudice to the Petitioner in the matter of its defence. That after passing of Part-I Award in favour of the Respondent, Petitioner was unable to lead evidence on account of long passage of time. That the Labour Court has awarded 30% backwages to the Respondent for a substantial long period of time of 20 years by ignoring the delay. Mr. Deshmukh would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Asstt. Engineer, CAD, Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar (2006) 5 SCC 481, Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and others (2007) 9 SCC 274 and General Manager, Haryana Roadways (2005) 5 SCC 591.
5. Per-contra, Mr. Lad, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent would oppose the petition and support the Order passed by the Labour Court. Inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act), he would submit that no specific period of limitation is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute which according to Mr. Lad can be rais
The judgment establishes that while the I.D. Act does not specify a limitation period for raising industrial disputes, unreasonable delay in doing so can prejudice the opposing party and impact the a....
The absence of a prescribed time limit for making a reference to the Labour Court should be considered in conjunction with general principles of delay and laches, and the plea of delay, if raised by ....
The existence of industrial dispute is essential for making a reference, and mere delay in raising the dispute cannot be a ground for refusing to make a reference. The government's opinion about the ....
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
Principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases....
In absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner workman establishing that he had worked under the Respondent continuously for 240 days and, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has....
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
It is again on issue of delay where there is no express provision for it. Whereas, in the present case, there is express provision providing limitation to prefer a Reference / claim before the Labour....
Courts cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
