The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act should be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner and not in a mechanical fashion. The court emphasized the need for a justifiable explanation for delay in raising the industrial dispute and clarified that the appropriate Government had no jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18th December 2020 passed in W.P(L) No.2121 of 2008 whereby the Notification dated 21st June 2007 referring the dispute in connection with the dismissal of the appellant-workman for adjudication to the Labour Court at Jamshedpur has been quashed. The learned writ Court has held that the reference was made at a belated stage without a justifiable explanation for the delay and, accordingly, the Government had no jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute for adjudication.

2. Admittedly, the appellant-workman (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was dismissed from the employment of the writ petitioner Management (hereinafter referred to as the Management) vide order dated 25.01.1996. Vide Notification of Reference dated 21st June 2007 the following dispute was referred for adjudication:

“Whether the dismissal of the workman Sri A.K. Sharma, Ex.P. No.100218 by the management of M/s Tisco Ltd. (Now Tata Steel Ltd.), Jamshedpur is justified? If not, then what relief he is entitled to?”

Argument of the Workman

3. The learned counsel for the workman has submitted that the learned writ Court has failed to consider that there were no latches on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and the delay was well explained. He also submits that the industrial dispute existed and it was neither dead nor stale.

4. He submits that in all eight criminal cases instituted against the workman by the Management on the same and similar charges as involved in eleven disciplinary proceedings, the workman was honorably acquitted in all the criminal cases and the last such acquittal was in the year 2001. Immediately thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute which took some time on the part of the State to make reference. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgments passed in “Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P State Electricity Board & Ors.” (2001) 6 SCC 222 and “Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar” (2014) 10 SCC 301.

Argument of the Management

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management has submitted that the criminal cases have nothing to do with the matter of disciplinary proceedings and it has been rightly observed by the learned writ Court that the plea of the workman that he could approach only after acquittal in the criminal cases was not acceptable as mere acquittal in criminal cases does not give a right to the workman to be reinstated in the service. The departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based and decided on different parameters. The Management has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors.” (2000) 2 SCC 455 and in “Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr.” (2015) 15 SCC 1.

Findings of this Court

6. The foundational facts are as follows:

a. The Appellant joined the Management as back as in the year 1974 and was made permanent on 1st January 1979.

b. In the year 1993 eight criminal cases were filed against the workman by the Management.

c. In the year 1994 as many as eleven chargesheets were issued against the workman and departmental proceeding was initiated.

d. The workman was acquitted in all the criminal cases and the last acquittal was on 30th June 2001.

e. During the pendency of the criminal cases, the workman was issued a letter dated 16th January 1996 along with a copy of the inquiry report in connection with the charges and was granted 7 days’ time to respond as to why the workman be not discharged from service. On 22nd January 1996, the workman filed his objection denying all the allegations and alleged victimization and false implication in the criminal cases and mentioned that the criminal cases were pending in the Courts. He also