SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 841

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 
Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union, Rep. By its general secy. Shri pratap borah - Petitioner
Versus 
The Union Of India, Rep. By The Secy. To The Govt. Of India and Ors.- Respondent 
WP(C) 6958 of 2016 
Decided On : 18-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.R.A. Naser, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. J. Roy, Sr. Advocate Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC Mr. B.P. Sarmah, Advocate

An industrial dispute is considered stale and ceases to be a live subject for adjudication when an unreasonable period of time has passed, rendering the issues raised irrelevant and a judgment upon them bereft of any practical utility or meaningful remedy for the parties.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Law - Industrial Disputes - Stale claims - An industrial dispute becomes stale when a significant period of time has elapsed since the cause of action, rendering the adjudication of such disputes ineffective or devoid of any meaningful result - Courts may decline to interfere with the orders of lower tribunals when the underlying controversy has been rendered irrelevant by the passage of several decades. (Paras 7-10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial discretion - Where the underlying industrial issues have lost their practical utility due to the failure to prosecute the reference for an extended duration, the court is justified in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction to revive the dispute. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
A union filed a writ petition challenging an award that declared a no-dispute status in a reference case that originated from labor demands and strike actions occurring approximately three decades prior. The tribunal had previously closed the reference due to the lack of interest and progress, and the application to recall that order was dismissed, prompting the current challenge before the high court.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the demands raised and the legality of the strikes from thirty-five to thirty-seven years ago had lost all relevance. It concluded that no meaningful purpose or relief could be attained by upsetting the tribunal's decision, as the passage of time had effectively rendered the dispute stale.

Issues: Whether an industrial dispute remains maintainable after the lapse of several decades and whether the appellate court should interfere with a no-dispute award when the cause of action has become stale.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that as a matter of judicial policy, disputes which have remained dormant for an unreasonable length of time lose their live character and should not be adjudicated, as the passage of time renders the original grievances obsolete and incapable of producing any practical outcome.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical context of stagnant industrial litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. doctrine of stale claims in industrial disputes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. dismissal of petition without precluding future fresh claims. (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S.R.A. Naser, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. J. Roy, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.P. Sarmah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 06.04.2013 passed in Reference Case No. 17/1991 as well as the order dated 30.09.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2014 by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

3. This Court duly takes note of that on 06.12.1991, a Notification was issued by the appropriate Government whereby a reference was made to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. The Terms of Reference, as mentioned in the Schedule to the said Notification dated 06.12.1991, are reproduced hereinbelow:

-Schedule-

1. (a) Whether the action of Bokajan Cement Crop. Employees Union in raising the demands vide their letter No. BKJ-9/BCCEU/1/89-90/18 dt. 2st/24th July, 1989 (as per annexure) before the General Manager, Bokajan Cement Factory, Bokajan is justified?

(b) If so what relief are the workman concerned entitled to?

2. (a) Whether the strikes resorted to by the workman of the aforesaid Cement Factory on 23.04.91 to 24.04.91 are legal and justified?

(b) If so, what relief are the said workman entitled to?”

4. The records reveal that pursuant to the issuance of the said Notification, a reference proceeding was registered being Reference Case No. 17/1991 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati. In the said proceedings, both sides initially participated. However, after 23 years, the said reference proceeding was closed vide the order dated 06.04.2013 on the ground that neither of the parties were interested in the matter. No steps were taken in spite of directions passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and it was under such circumstances, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati came to an opinion, no industrial dispute existed between the parties and accordingly passed a no-dispute award.

5. The records further reveal that the petitioner thereupon filed an application before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati being Misc. Case No. 01/2014 seeking recall of the order dated 06.04.2013. The learned Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati vide a detailed order dated 30.09.2014 observed that there was no sufficient cause for recalling the order dated 06.04.2013 and accordingly dismissed the said application.

6. Two years thereafter, on 15.11.2016, the present writ petition was filed. The records further reveal that this Court had issued notice. The records also show that the writ petition was twice dismissed for non-prosecution.

7. In the backdrop of the above, the most pertinent question which arises in the present proceedings is as to whether any industrial dispute is in existence or whether the said dispute has become stale with the passage of time.

8. It is pertinent to observe that the Terms of Reference mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification dated 06.12.1991 was primarily in respect to two aspects.

9. The first aspect related to whether the action of the Bokajan Cement Corporation Employees Union in raising demands vide the letter dated 21/24.07.1989 before the General Manager, Bokajan Cement Factory, Bokajan was justified. This Court has perused the Charter of Demands submitted in the year 1989. These demands were raised almost 37 years ago and, as on date, no longer have relevance, taking into account the passage of time. Under such circumstances, the Terms of Reference pertaining to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top