Back
1999(4) Supreme 51
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Ajaib Singh -Appellant
versus
The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2157 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11036 of 1998)
Decided on 8-4-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : B.L. Yadav, Sr. Advocate, P.K. Chakravarty and K. Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R.K. Talwar, (D.M. Sinha), Advocate for Y.P. Dhingra, Advocates.
Held : The object of the Act, therefore, is to give succour to weaker sections of the society which is a pre-requisite for a welfare State. To ensure industrial peace and pre-empt industrial tension, the Act further aims at enhancing the industrial production which is acknowledged to be life-blood of a developing society. The Act proides a machinery for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes ignoring the legal technicalities with a view to avoid delays, by specially authorised courts which are not supposed to deny the relief on account of the procedural wrangles. The Act contemplates realistic and effective negotiations, conciliation and adjudication as per the need of the society keeping in view the fast changing social norms of the developing country like India. It appears to us that the High Court has adopted a usual approach in deciding the matter apparently ignoring the purpose, aim and object of the Act. (Para 6)
The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the backwages instead of full back wages. (Para 10)
It is not the function of the court to prescribe the limitation where the Legislature in its wisdom had thought it fit not to prescribe any period. The courts admittedly interpret law and do not make laws. Personal views of the Judges presiding the court cannot be stretched to authorise them to interpret law in sucha manner which would amount to legislation intentionally left over by the Legislature. (Para 10)
In the instant case, the respondent-management is not shown to have taken any plea regarding delay as is evident from the issues framed by the labour court. The only plea raised in defence was that the labour court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference and the termination of the services of the workman was justified. Had this plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances preventing him in approaching the Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court that such aplea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the government. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore, were not justified in holding that the workman had not given any explanation as to why the demand notice had been issued after a long period. The findings of facts returned by the High Court in writ proceedings, even without pleadings were, therefore, unjustified. The High Court was also not justified in holding that the courts were bound to render an even handed justice by keeping balance between the two different parties. Such an approach totally ignores the aims and object and the social object sought to be achieved by the Act. Even after noticing that “it is true that a fight between the workman and the management is not a just between equals,” the court was not justified to make them equals while returning the findings, which if allowed to prevail, would result in frustration of the purpose of the enactment. The workman appears to be justified in complaining that in the absence of any plea on behalf of the management and any evidence, regarding delay, he could not be deprived of the benefits under the Act merely on technicalities of law. The High Court appears to have substituted its opinion for the opinion of the labour court which was not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. We are, however, of the opinion that on account of the admitted delay, the labour court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying the appellant-workman some part of the back wages. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside by upholding the award of the labour court with modification that upon his reinstatement the appellant would be entitled to continuity of service, but back wages to the extent of 60 per cent with effect from 8.12.1981 whenhe raised the demand for justice till the date of award of the labour court i.e. 16.4.1986 and full backw ages thereafter till his reinstatement would be payable to him. (Paras 11 & 12)
Judgment
Sethi, J.-Leave granted.
2. The services of the appellant-workman were terminated by the respondent-management allegedly without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The dispute regarding his termination of services was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate government on 19.3.1982. The management justified their action on the ground that as the workman, being a salesman, had embezzled thousand of rupees, the termination of his services was justified. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and adjudication the reference was also disputed. However, after the evidence of the parties, the labour court vide its award dated 16.4.1986 directed re-instatement of the workman with full back wages from 8.12.1981. It may be worth noticing that the issue regarding jurisdiction of the labour court to entertain the reerence was not pressed by the management. Not satisfied with the award of the labour court, the management filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing the award of the labour court mainly on the ground of the workman having approached the court for the grant of the relief after a prolonged delay. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief as he was allegedly shown to have slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted with the management at a belated stage when it might have been difficult for the employer to prove the guilt of the workman. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
3. Supporting the impugned judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the management-respondent has contended that the principle incorporated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act thoughnot specifically made applicable yet would be deemed to be applicable in a case under the Act for the purpose of making a reference in terms of Section 10 thereof. In support of his contentions, he has referred to different judgments under various enactments. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has, however, submittedthat the principles incorporated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act cannot be held to be applicable under the Act for the purposes of making a reference of the dispute to the labour court and that the reliance of the learned counsel on different judgments was misconceived for reasons of not taking note of the special provision of the Act which admittedly is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interests of the workmen employed in various industries.
4. It is not in dispute that the services of the workman were terminated on 16.7.1974 and he had issued the notice of demand only on 8.12.1981. It is also not disputed that no plea regarding delay appears to have been taken by the management before the labourt court. It is also acknowledged that Article 137 of the Limitation Act has not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Act seeking reference of industrial disputes to the labour court. This Court, in no case, has so far held that either Article 137 of the Limitation Act or the principle incorporated therein is applicable to the proceedings under the Act.
5. Before appreciating the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties, it has to be noticed as to under what circumstances the Act was enacted and what was the objectives sought to be achieved by its legislation. It cannot be disputed that the Act was brought on the statute book with the object to ensure social justice to both the employers and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. It is a piece of legislation providing and regulating the service conditions of the workers. The object of the Act is to improve the service conditions of industrial labour so as to provide for them the ordinary amenitie
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
