Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Mahipatsing Jorubha Chudasama – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Executive Engineer – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application Nos. 14355 and 14372 of 2020
Decided on : 12-01-2022
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Industrial Dispute - Illegally Terminated - It is alleged by petitioners that they were illegally terminated without any procedure, as envisaged in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) which constrained them to raise an industrial dispute - Whether they pursued their illegal termination, and kept the dispute alive. Nothing is produced before Labor Court in this regard - petitioner’s workmen were required to be vigilant enough to raise the industrial dispute within a reasonable period. It is trite that delay comes in way of equity, enormous delay of 17 years in raising the dispute will eclipse retrenchment which was in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act - Court is not expected to exercise its discretion to such indolent persons, who approach the Court of law as per their leisure - Held, Existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference" - Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record - Policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry - Writ petitions fail.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Supehia, J.
1. Since the facts and issue involved in both these writ petitions are common, therefore, they are heard together and decided analogously by this common oral order.
2. RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of behalf of the respective respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14355 of 2020, was employed by the respondent authority on 01.06.1998 and in Special Civil Application No. 14372 of 2020, he was employed on 01.06.1992. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were illegally terminated on 31.12.1998 without following any procedure, as envisaged in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) which constrained them to raise an industrial dispute which culminated into the Reference (LCR) Nos. 35 and 34 of 2016, respectively. The Labour Court, after examining all the facts, has rejected both the references on the ground of delay. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioners workmen had raised the demand notice after a period of 17 years and hence, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, 2018 (15) SCC 1 and other judgment of this Court on the issue of delay has rejected the reference.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Khushbu D. Chhaya, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Labour Court has fell in error in rejecting the reference on the ground of delay, since there is no limitation provided for raising the industrial dispute. She has placed reliance on the judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2770 of 2019, whereby the Court had remanded the matter to the Labour Court. She has submitted that accordingly the matter may be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. No further submissions are advanced by learned advocate for the petitioners.
5. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned advocate for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Meet Thakkar while placing reliance on the decision in the case of Prabhakar (Supra) has submitted that the Labour Court has precisely rejected the reference on the ground of delay. He has submitted that admittedly for the first time, notice for demand was issued by the petitioners after a delay of 17 years. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned awards may not be interfered with.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
7. This Court has perused the awards. As the facts narrated above, would suggest that the dispute has been raised after a period of 17 years and there is nothing in defence either oral or documentary evidence produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court indicating that the workmen have kept the dispute alive by approaching the respondent with regard to alleged illegal termination. It is alleged by both the petitioners that they were orally terminated without following the procedure, as envisaged under Section 25F of the I.D. Act on 31.12.1998. A perusal of the awards reveals that for the first time, the petitioners raised the demand and issued demand notice on 18.02.2016. The Labour Court after examining various judgments of this Court, has rejected the references on the ground of delay.
8. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Prabhakar (supra), the Supreme Court while analyzing the aspect of delay in reference and its impact on industrial dispute, has held thus:-
28.1. The law of limitation does not apply to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
28.2. The words "at any time" used in Section 10 would support that there is no period of limitation in making an order of reference.
28.3. At the same time, the appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim a
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
