Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Abdul Waheed, S/o. Abdul Hameed - Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer, Savan Bhado Project, Block Kota Rajasthan. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14885 of 2022 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15276 OF 2022
Decided On : 25-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of petitions based on common questions of law and termination facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. evidence of timely raising of disputes contradicts premature claims of laches. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 14) |
| 3. limitation period does not apply to industrial disputes; however, claims must be alive. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. mandatory obligation for labour courts to adjudicate on merit upon case remand. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. These writ petitions were filed from different awards but raising common question of law. The services of the petitioners of both the writ petitions were terminated on 17.08.1988 by the respondents. Thus they are decided with a common order.
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14885/2022 is filed by petitioner Abdul Waheed aggrieved from award dated 26.02.2019 in LCA Case No. 448/2001 on a reference dated 05.07.2001 sent by the Labour Department under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court has rejected the claim on the ground of delay as the dispute was raised after eight years of termination. The prayer of the writ petition is reproduced as under:-
"I. That by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction be quashed and set aside the award dated 26-02-2019(Annexure-19).
II. The respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in role of service of Welder as he was working earlier under the employment of the respondent.
III. That respondent may be directed to pay all the back wages and benefits of the service as prescribed by the law.
IV. Any other direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners may kindly be passed.
V. Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15276/2022 is filed by petitioner Abdul Hameed aggrieved from award dated 28.02.2019 in LCR Case No. 45/2001 on a reference by Labour Department dated 06.01.2001 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The prayer of the writ petition is reproduced as under:-
"I. That by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction be quashed and set aside the award dated 28-02-2019(Annexure-17).
II. The respondent may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in role of service of Welder as he was working earlier under the employment of the respondent.
III. That respondent may be directed to pay all the back wages and benefits of the service as prescribed by the law.
IV. Any other direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners may kindly be passed.
V. Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide letter dated 16.08.1988 the respondent has terminated the services of Tarachand, Abdul Hameed and Abdul Waheed with effect from 17.08.1988 (Annexure-1) and two workmen Abdul Hameed and Abdul Waheed are before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing of these writ petitions. He further submits that the workman Tarachand has challenged the order dated 16.08.1988 by submitting a reference before the Labour Court, Kota which was decided on 21.04.1995 as LCR No.72/1990 and Labour Court has declared termination of service with effect from 17.08.1988 as unfair and illegal and reinstated Tarachand into service. He also submits that the case of the petitioners is identical with Tarachand as he was terminated with Abdul Hameed and Abdul Waheed by a common order. He further referred communication and reminder submitted that the Conciliation Officer on 22.08.1988 and the Joint Labour Commissioner on 03.02.1997 and submitted that the reference was not made on time to the Labour Court. He further submitted that if reference is not made on time, then it is not a case of delay by the petitioners. He further submitted that the respondent has not raised any objection about delay in raising the dispute but Labour Court itself has decided the reference only on ground that the termination
A significant delay in raising an industrial dispute can render it stale, even in the absence of a statutory limitation period.
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 ....
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.
A workman must demonstrate that an industrial dispute remains alive despite delays; failure to do so renders the dispute stale and unenforceable.
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....
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
