A stale industrial dispute cannot be maintained; the workman must demonstrate that the dispute remains alive despite delays, as established in Prabhakar v. Joint Director.

ORDER :

(Pranav Trivedi, J.)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the judgment and order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3608 of 2022.

2. The prayers made in the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original petitioner was to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 21.01.2020 passed by the labour court in Reference (LCH) No. 176 of 2015.

3. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the factual aspect and more particularly the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 held that the Reference itself was not maintainable on the ground of delay and therefore, the petition was required to be allowed. On the said view point, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the labour court in Reference (LCH) No. 176 of 2015.

4. The factual matrix which led to filing of the writ petition is that the appellant herein – original respondent was working as a daily wager – watchman since 01.01.1993. It is the case of the appellant that he was orally terminated with effect from 30.12.2005, whereas it is the case of the respondent – original petitioner that the workman abandoned the service from 30.10.2000. Pursuant to such dispute, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which culminated into Reference No. (LCH) No. 176 of 2015 and the labour court by way of award dated 21.01.2020 held that the appellant – original respondent was orally terminated and, therefore, he was required to be reinstated in service from 16.04.2015 along with 20% backwages and notional benefits. The labour court also awarded costs of Rs.2,501/-. The said award dated 21.01.2020 came to be challenged by the respondent – original petitioner by way of preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3608 of 2022. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has held that the reference is barred by delay and laches as it was preferred almost after a period of ten years and that the appellant - original respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in the previous years and as such, there was no breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, considering the case of the respondent – original petitioner, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition which is impugned in the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellant at the stage of admission hearing of the present appeal. The main bone of contention canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Mishra is that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition on the ground that the Reference is barred by delay and laches. It is further contended by learned advocate Mr. Mishra that this aspect has been properly dealt with by the labour court in its judgment and award and, therefore, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition on such ground. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court and this Court i.e. (i) in the case of Uttrakhand v. Rajkumar reported in (2019) 14 SCC 353, (ii) in the case of Brahmbhatt Jayesh Bhupatray v. State of Gujarat rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1554 of 2018 dated 13.03.2019; (iii) in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Dharmendra B, Vegad rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2990 of 2010 dated 30.12.2010 and in the case of Dhanjibhai Bhanabhai Alias Bhanjibhai Maru v. State of Gujarat rendered in Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2016 dated 01.05.2018. Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate Mr. Mishra has submitted that the case of Prabhakar (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and