Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 473
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
N.S. Bhatnagar - Appellant
Versus
M/s. India Tourism Development Corporation - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No.9608 of 2007
Decided on : 28-04-2008
For the Petitioner:Kumar Saurabh, Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Kapur, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of an industrial dispute on the date of reference is crucial, and an inordinate and unexplained delay in raising a dispute can lead to the conclusion that no dispute existed at the time of the reference.
Headnote:
Stale Dispute - Employment Dispute - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 4-K, Section 10 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of the expression 'at any time' in Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It highlights the limitations of time on the government's power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication and the circumstances under which a dispute can be considered stale. The court emphasizes that the existence of an industrial dispute on the date of reference is the real test for the government's power to make a reference. It also discusses previous decisions on stale disputes and the factors to consider in determining the staleness of a dispute.
Fact of the Case:
Mr. N.S. Bhatnagar, an employee of India Tourism Development Corporation, was dismissed in 1981 on charges of fraud and dishonesty. Nearly 22 years later, he approached the Labour Court claiming illegal termination. The Labour Court found that no dispute existed at the time of the reference due to the prolonged delay in raising the industrial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Mr. Bhatnagar failed to demonstrate valid reasons for not approaching the Conciliation Officer promptly after his dismissal in 1981. It concluded that the delay of around 22 years was inordinate and unexplained, leading to the finding that no dispute existed at the time of the reference.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in raising the industrial dispute, the lack of valid reasons for the delay, and the claim for parity with another case. The court also considered the interpretation of the expression 'at any time' in the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The real test for the government's power to make a reference for adjudication is the existence of an industrial dispute on the date of reference. The delay in raising a dispute and the lack of valid reasons for the delay can lead to the conclusion that no dispute existed at the time of the reference.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's decision that the dispute was stale and that no dispute existed at the time of the reference.
1. Theworkman, Mr. N.S. Bhatnagar, was initially employed by the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) in the year 1972 as a Store Helper at a consolidated salary of Rs.200/-per month. In the same year, he came to be promoted as an Assistant Storekeeper.
2. In August 1976, he was suspended on charges of fraud and dishonesty. He was charged with misappropriating Rs.12,146.85. A chargesheet was issued to him in 1977 by his employer. At the same time, a criminal complaint was also lodged against him at the local police station.
3. A domestic inquiry was also commenced by the respondent. There, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in 1981. Consequent upon this, Mr. Bhatnagar was issued a show cause notice. He duly replied to the same. Ultimately, on 1/6/1981, Mr. Bhatnagar was dismissed from service.
4. Mr. Bhatnagar claims that he approached the Labour Authority against his dismissal, but was advised to wait for the conclusion of the criminal trial that was pending as a result of the aforesaid criminal complaint lodged by his employers on the same allegations.
5. On 4/12/2002, Mr. Bhatnagar was acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that there was no evidence against him. Armed with this acquittal, he sent a demand notice to his employer on 3/2/2003. Having received no reply to this notice, he initiated conciliation proceedings. However, these proceedings came to naught and the matter was referred by the Government to the Labour Court.
6. This case is unique. The dispute came to be referred by the Government to the Labour Court nearly 27 years after Mr. Bhatnagar was initially suspended by his employer, ITDC, i.e., the respondent herein. The Labour Court has thrown out the reference because, according to it, the reference is stale and, in view of the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter, no dispute can be said to have existed on the date of the reference. It has also examined some authorities on this point.
7. At the relevant time, Mr. Bhatnagar was employed at the Akbar Hotel by the respondent. That hotel was shut down long ago. Before the Labour Court, while the respondent pleaded that the enquiry conducted by it in the year 1981 was legally sound, it failed to produce any evidence in support of that plea since, according to it, the enquiry report was not traceable. Furthermore, at the trial conducted by the Labour Court, the respondent led no evidence to prove Mr. Bhatnagar's misconduct. The Labour Court therefore concluded that it had no option but to hold that the workman has proved illegal termination of his service by the management. However, despite this conclusion, the Labour Court declined any relief to Mr. Bhatnagar. This was because it felt that even if Mr. Bhatnagar's case is taken at its highest, and he is taken to have sent a legal notice to his employer on 1.5.1981, demanding reinstatement; he admittedly slept over the matter for the next 22 years since the next notice was admittedly sent by Mr. Bhatnagar only on 3/2/2003. Furthermore, the Labour Court found that even this notice fails to raise any dispute with regard to his termination from service, nor does it demand reinstatement. It merely asks for the supply of some documents. It was under these circumstances that the Labour Court concluded that no industrial dispute subsisted when the reference was made.
8. Before me, counsel for Mr. Bhatnagar, the petitioner herein, has urged two main grounds. First, that soon after his dismissal in June 1981, his client had approached the concerned Labour Authority, but was advised to wait for the outcome of the criminal trial that he was facing on the same charge, and to come back after the conclusion of the said trial. He states that it was for this reason that he had waited all these years for the conclusion of his trial before raising the industrial dispute by approaching the Government in the year 2003 after nearly 22 years.
9. His second ground of challenge is that one Mr.
