Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
Baldevji Natvarji Solanki – Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 10967 of 2014
Decided On : 20-06-2024
Delay - Termination - Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10, 2(k), 25F, 25G - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the existence of an industrial dispute and the implications of delay in raising such disputes, concluding that the delay rendered the dispute stale and non-existent, thus justifying the Labour Court's dismissal of the reference.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed since 1989, was terminated in 1999 without notice or compensation. After a delay of over ten years, he raised an industrial dispute, which the Labour Court dismissed due to the delay and failure to prove continuous service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court correctly dismissed the reference based on the delay and the petitioner's inability to demonstrate that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Issues: Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the reference on the grounds of delay and failure to prove continuous service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while there is no limitation period under the ID Act, a significant delay in raising a dispute can render it stale, and the workman must demonstrate that the dispute is still alive.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 31.03.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) 495 of 2009, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the petitioner on the ground of delay as well as failure on the part of the petitioner to prove that the petitioner has worked for 240 days in the previous year from the date of termination of the service.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1. The petitioner was working with respondent nos.1 and 2 since 05.03.1989 with monthly salary of Rs.1,550/- doing labour work of removing the testing materials in the laboratory at Changodar. During the period of his tenure, the petitioner was never issued any memo, show-cause notice or charge-sheet. The petitioner was also not provided with any document of employment i.e. identity card, attendance card, leave card or pay-slip.
3.2. During the course of employment on 02.10.1999, the petitioner was terminated without any prior intimation or notice, notice pay, in lieu of notice. The services of the petitioner were terminated without any domestic inquiry for payment of retrenchment compensation and respondent did not follow the mandatory provisions of 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”).
3.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the termination, raised the industrial dispute in the year 2008, by filing an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner with an application to condone the delay.
3.4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner made a reference being Reference No.495 of 2009 before the Labour Court, at Ahmedabad. The Labour Court after considering the reference as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated in service with continuity and with backwages or not, issued the notice to the respondents. The petitioner filed the statement of claim at Exhibit-4 contending that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with backwages as he has discharged continuous services for more than 10 years with the respondent nos.1 and 2.
3.5. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed written submissions at Exhibit-7 contending that the petitioner has after the termination from the service in 1999 has raised the Industrial Dispute after more than ten years and he was doing service at other places and accordingly requested for dismissal of the reference.
3.6. After considering the evidences placed on record, the Labour court vide order dated 31.03.2014 rejected the reference filed by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days with respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. Further the petitioner has also failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of ten years in preferring the reference.
4. Learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have considered the reference on merits and instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary submitted that no limitation is provided under the provisions of the ID Act. It was therefore submitted that the reference filed by the petitioner ought to have been considered, more particularly when the respondents did not raise any objection before the Assistant Labour Commissioner or with regard to the delay of ten years for raising the industrial dispute by the petitioner.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary therefore submitted that the Labour Court could not have gone into the question of delay when the reference is made under Section 10 of the ID Act in absence of any objection by the respondent authorities with regard to the delay in raising the industrial dispute.
4.3. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary submitted that the industrial dispute was l
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
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....
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....
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 ....
An industrial dispute must be actively pursued; significant delays in raising disputes can render them non-existent, impacting the ability to seek relief.
Point of Law - There is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the “appropriate Government” to consider whether it is expedient....
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
