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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Jailal - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Haryana And Another - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 15372 of 1993
Decided On : 05-12-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sunil Sharma and Amit Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Gaurav Goel, AAG, Haryana

The appropriate Government cannot decline reference to the labour court based on irrelevant grounds, and expeditious resolution of industrial disputes is essential.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act - Refusal to Refer Dispute - Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 2-A - [Section 10(1)(c), Section 2-A]

Fact of the Case:

The State Government declined to refer an industrial dispute to the labour court, citing termination of services as per the appointment letter and the workman's unwillingness to rejoin without back wages. The court found the reasons for declining the reference irrelevant and declared the order illegal and unsustainable.

Finding of the Court:

The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of certiorari was issued to quash the impugned order. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the area Labour Court directly. The Labour Court was directed to expedite the hearing and make a serious endeavor to conclude the matter within one year.

Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the State Government to refer the industrial dispute to the labour court based on reasons deemed irrelevant by the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The appropriate Government cannot decline reference on grounds irrelevant to the consideration under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the dispute and recommended the use of time tables and speedier methods within the framework of labour law and procedure to abridge delays.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of certiorari was issued to quash the impugned order. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the area Labour Court directly. The State was saddled with costs of Rs. 1 lac, to be paid to the workman before the labour court, failing which, penal interest would apply, and the defense of the State would be struck off.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

The impugned order declining to refer the industrial dispute for determination by the labour court reads as follows :-

"On the above subject you are informed that the State Government does not find your case fit to be referred to the court for adjudication because from the enquiry it has revealed that your services were terminated as per the terms and conditions of your appointment letter. The management was still willing to take you back in service without back wages for the intervening period, but you are not willing to join."

2. The reference has been declined by breaching all canons of industrial law and judicial precedents on the point long established that the appropriate Government is merely a post office in referring industrial disputes to the area Labour Court for adjudication on merits. In this process, the appropriate Government cannot don the robes of the court and decline reference on the ground that the termination took place in terms of the appointment letter. The second reason to decline the reference is equally bad, that the management is still willing to take back the workman in service without back wages for the intervening period but the petitioner was not willing to join. Both these reasons are irrelevant to the consideration in making reference under section 10 (1) (c) read with section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"). The impugned order is declared per se illegal an unsustainable. No arguments are required to be addressed on the grievance of the petitioning workman that he has been grossly wronged by the State in declining reference on the flimsiest of grounds.

3. The writ petition is allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order. Had this matter been decided prior to amendment of Section 2-A of the Act, this Court would have directed the appropriate Government to make a reference to the area Labour Court or consider doing so. However, with the change of law the conditions prescribed in the amended Sub- Section 2 of Section 2-A have come into force and deserve to be applied in order to save further loss of time. The petitioner is given the liberty to approach the area Labour Court at Faridabad, Haryana directly by presenting his statement of claim. On claim being presented within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the Labour Court will issue process to the opposite party to appear by numbering the reference and thereafter would proceed to conduct the trial on the issue: whether the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unjustified, and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? The Labour Court is free to strike issues, in case it deems it fit for its convenience in returning findings on the issues arising on the pleadings received. The dispute being a grossly old and the fact that it has taken 22 years for this matter to be decided, the Labour Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and make a serious endeavour to conclude the matter preferably within one year from the date when parties are called upon to produce their evidence. The labour court will be cautious and extremely careful in granting adjournments and preferably none be given and therefore a schedule of milestones in the conduct of the trial from start to finish be listed in the shape of a time table/calendar by fixing day and event in advance as recommended for civil suits by the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmila Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 designing for good measure in para.52 & 53 a salutary procedure as follows:-

"J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any inter





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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top