Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Baij Nath Misra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C No.10365 of 2004
Decided on : 22-05-2023
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 4K, Section 10 - Section 33A - Section 137 of the Limitation Act - Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a conductor at Mirzapur Depot, was removed from service in 1981, reinstated in 1992 with forfeited wages, and raised an industrial dispute in 1995. The Labour Court rejected the claim citing delay and lack of merit without discussing the case's merits.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court's decision was found to be illegal and arbitrary as the petitioner's delay in approaching the court was not unreasonable, and the case was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in raising the industrial dispute and the forfeiture of wages, as well as the lack of consideration of the case's merits by the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that 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. It also highlighted that the plea of delay, if raised by the employer, must be proved to show real prejudice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the Labour Court's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration within three months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri P.K. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.11.2001, passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad which was published on 06.07.2002.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was posted and working as Conductor in Mirzapur Depot and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the respondent -U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rajapur, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P.S.R.T.C.") against petitioner and by means of order dated 16.07.1981, he was placed under suspension and on 21.08.1981, charge sheet was issued to him. The petitioner submitted reply which was not found satisfactory by the respondents and thereafter domestic enquiry was commenced and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner an order for removal of his services was passed against petitioner on 18.09.1981 by Assistant Regional Manager.
4. Aggrieved by order dated 18.09.1981, petitioner preferred appeal before the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. which was rejected. The petitioner being further aggrieved, by the appellate order, preferred second appeal before the Zonal Manager, East Zone, U.P.S.R.T.C., Varanasi who by means of order dated 30.05.1992, set aside the order of removal and reinstated the petitioner in service, but forfeited the wages during period of petitioner's unemployment.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 30.05.1992, raised industrial dispute through his Union before the Conciliation Officer, Allahabad alongwith delay condonation application. After hearing the parties, the delay was condoned by the Conciliation Officer by order dated 21.04.1994, but no settlement can be arrived at and failure report was submitted and reference was made which was registered as Case No. 7 of 1985.
6. The petitioner filed his claim and notices were issued to the U.P.S.R.T.C. who had put in appearance and opposed the claim of petitioner. Claim of petitioner was contested mainly on the ground of delay. It was stated that petitioner was removed from service by means of order dated 30.09.1981 and subsequently second appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by Chief General Manager on 30.05.1992, but the reference has been made only in 1995 and hence it is unreasonably long period of time for which petitioner's claim was barred by delay and laches and accordingly the Labour Court should reject the claim out rightly.
7. The Labour Court finding favour with the objection raised by the employer and also considering the fact that according to relevant provisions no time period is prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act for raising an industrial dispute but three years time would be substantial period within which a claim can be made and petitioner has approached the Labour Court beyond period of three years hence the claim was barred by delay and laches.
8. Apart from rejecting claim of petitioner, the labour Cout has recorded that in the alleged facts stated by the workman in his claim, same cannot be accepted. In sum and substance claim of workman was rejected on the ground of limitation as well as merits though merit of the case was not even dealt with or discussed any where in the award.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as there is no time frame within which reference can be made before the Labour Court and submits that otherwise also there was no delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the Labour Court. The petitioner preferred first and second appeal, the second appeal of petitioner was considered and allowed by the Zonal manager only in the year 1992. The Labour Court did not
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.
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....
The judgment establishes that while the I.D. Act does not specify a limitation period for raising industrial disputes, unreasonable delay in doing so can prejudice the opposing party and impact the a....
Principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases....
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
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 existence of industrial dispute is essential for making a reference, and mere delay in raising the dispute cannot be a ground for refusing to make a reference. The government's opinion about the ....
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
