Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Ramu Mochi – Respondent
I.A. No. 3013 of 2023, L.P.A. No. 631 of 2022
Decided On : 10-04-2024
DELAY - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10, 25F - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 10 regarding the reference of disputes and Section 25F concerning retrenchment. The court interpreted that the delay in raising disputes does not negate the existence of the dispute, and the tribunal has the authority to adjudicate even if there is a delay. The court emphasized that the definition of retrenchment is broad and includes various forms of termination, thus influencing the decision to uphold the tribunal's order for reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant bank challenged the dismissal of its writ petition against an award directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman, who claimed he was wrongfully terminated after working as a casual employee. The bank argued that the workman voluntarily left his job and raised the dispute after an 11-year delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal's decision to reinstate the workman was justified, as the bank failed to provide evidence of misconduct or proper termination procedures. The court noted that the workman's absence was not formally addressed by the bank, and the tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence presented.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in raising the dispute affects its maintainability? 2. Whether the respondent workman was wrongfully terminated? 3. Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in raising the dispute does not invalidate it, and the tribunal has the authority to adjudicate on matters of industrial disputes. The definition of retrenchment is expansive, and the workman was entitled to protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as he had worked in a capacity that warranted such protection.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the tribunal's order for reinstatement of the workman without back wages.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
I.A. No. 3013 of 2023
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal.
3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
4. I.A. No. 3013 of 2023 stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 631 of 2022
5. The instant letters patent appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 passed in W.P. (L) No. 2679 of 2017; whereby the learned writ court has dismissed the application preferred by the appellant-bank challenging the Award dated 30.03.1999; whereby the reference was decided in favour of the respondent-workman and the learned tribunal has directed the management of the Bank to reinstate the respondent-workman within 60 days from the date of publication of the award without paying any back wages.
6. The fact of this case has a chequered history. The case of the appellant-Bank is that for the purpose of cleaning, storage of water, etc. the appellant bank uses to keep some part time workers on a fixed remuneration. The respondent-workman was one such person who worked for a period of 04.09.1981 to 05.01.1983, on a causal basis and from 05.01.1983, out of his own will, stopped coming to job.
The case of the respondent-writ petitioner is that, he was terminated from service. Later on, when he was not reinstated, he filed an application dated 02.02.1994 before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India raising the dispute before the said authority with regard to his illegal termination of service by the appellant Bank.
The matter was taken up in conciliation on 17.06.1994, however the aforesaid conciliation failed and accordingly, a reference was made by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide aforesaid letter dated 30.06.1994.
7. The stand of the appellant Bank is that for the first time the said dispute with regard to alleged illegal termination of service of the respondent was raised before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India; whereas the stand of Respondent workman is that he has duly filed several representations before the Management for his reinstatement but the same were never disposed of by the Management of the appellant Bank.
8. The Central Government vides an order being order no. L-12012/183/94-I.R. (B-1) dated 05.10.1995 referred the said case to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, a reference case was instituted being reference case no. 137 of 1995 and the Management filed its written statement cum rejoinder on 30.05.1996. In reply to the aforesaid written statement cum rejoinder, the respondent filed its rejoinder. The documents were exhibited on behalf of both the sides and the Management has exhibited the letter of engagement of the workman along with the payment of vouchers showing the days of work of the respondent being less than 240 days.
The Learned Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad after appreciating the facts held that the Management of the Bank is directed to reinstate Sri Ramu Mochi (Respondent) within 60 days from the date of publication of the award in the official Gazette without paying any back wages.
9. Being aggrieved, the appellant bank moved before the writ jurisdiction of Patna High Court by filing application being C.W.J.C. No. 5485 of 1999. The said writ petition was taken up on 24.03.2000 wherein the Patna High Court after hearing the parties held that during the pendency of this case, respondent no. 3 shall be reinstated by the Management but will be paid only the wages payable in terms of section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, subject to the result of the case.
In compliance to the aforesaid order, the appellant bank duly re-instated Respondent and was accordingly being paid in terms of the afo
The court established that delays in raising industrial disputes do not negate the existence of the dispute, and the expansive definition of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act protects ev....
Termination due to discontinuation of a scheme amounts to retrenchment requiring compliance with statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 10 reads as reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.
Termination of service – Retrenchment – Workman was proved to have worked continuously on daily wage basis for more than five years.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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 ....
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
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.
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
