2014 Supreme(SC) 630

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
RAGHUBIR SINGH – APPELLANT
Vs.
GENERAL MANAGER,HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8434 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 22487 of 2012)
Decided On : 03-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
A workman cannot be restrained from seeking relief only on ground of delay in raising the dispute.
Dispensing with enquiry by invoking Article 311(2)(b) without giving any reason is contrary to law.
Termination in violation of natural justice is vitiated.
Despite delay in raising dispute or making reference, Labour court is duty bound to adjudicate the dispute on merits

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1) – Reference rejected on ground of being time barred – Bad in law – Appropriate Government may make a reference at any time provided a dispute exists or apprehended – Provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act has no application to make reference by the appropriate government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. (Para 11, 12)

       (1979) 1 SCC 1; (2001)6 SCC 222 – Relied upon

       (2013) 14 SCC 543 – Distinguished

       (b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10(1) – A workman cannot be restrained from seeking relief only on ground of delay in raising the dispute – Presently, considering the fact situation of the case, the reference was in time. (Para 14)

       (2003)4 SCC 27; (1999)6 SCC 82 – Relied upon

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Labour Court erroneously holding the reference to be barred by limitation – Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court also erroneously approving the same – Dispute ought to be adjudicated on merits. (Para 17)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 311(2)(b) – Charge sheet could not be served on the appellant because of him not being found at his given address – Paper publication of the notice – Appellant neither responding nor joining duty – Becoming unresponsive – Reasons for invoking Article 311(2)(b) not mentioned in termination order – Not proper. (Para 19 to 21)

       (e) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Appellant terminated under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 – Being a workman u/s 2(s), appellant was governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and not the 1987 Rules – Proceeding and punishment of termination vitiated in law. (Para 23, 24)

       (f) Labour Law – Termination – Without conducting enquiry in allegation of unauthorised absence – Dispensing with enquiry by invoking Article 311(2)(b) without giving any reason – Contrary to provisions of the Act, principles of natural justice and the law laid down by Supreme Court – Entire proceeding, punishment, award and order of High Court vitiated – Liable to be set aside. (Para 25)

       AIR 1966 SC 282 – Relied upon

       (g) Labour Law – termination – Natural Justice – Appellant dismissed without issuing first or second show cause notice – Violation of natural justice – Termination vitiated. (Para 27)

       (1991)1 SCC 588; (1993)4 SCC 727 – Relied upon

       (h) Labour Law – termination – Unauthorised absence ought to be enquired into – Even if allegation was proved, employer could have regularized the same by granting leave with or without wages – Depriving the appellant despite the said remedies available – Violation of Article 21, Constitution of India. (Para 27 to 29)

       (1985)3 SCC 545 – Relied upon

       (i) Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 – Workman in employment of State undertaking – Termination without considering leave at the credit of the employee or his entitlement to leave with or without wages – Order of termination violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21. (Para 30)

       (j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Labour court framing additional issue no. 2 regarding limitation and rejecting the reference – Not adjudicating points of disputes referred – Amounts to failure to exercise its statutory power – High Court also erroneously confirming the same – Not sustainable (Para 31)

       (1980)3 SCC 459 – Relied upon

       (k) Labour law – Punishment – Doctrine of proportionality – Order of termination, even if justified – Held, disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. (Para 36)

       (1973) 1 SCC 813; (2001)2 SCC 386 – Relied upon

       (l) Labour law – Departmental enquiries – Reinstatement – Dispute raised by workman after his acquittal in the criminal case – Delay occurring for justifiable reasons – Even otherwise, despite delay, Labour court duty bound to adjudicate the dispute on merits – Ought to have moulded the relief – Not done – Courts below erring in law – Impugned judgment and order liable to be set aside – Held, workman entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. (Para 42, 43)

       AIR 1966 SC 282 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       In 1976, the appellant joined the Haryana Roadways as a conductor. On 10.08.1993, the appellant was charged under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in a criminal case at the instance of the respondent for alleged misappropriation of the amount collected from tickets and not depositing the cash in relation to the same in time. The appellant was arrested by the Jurisdictional police and sent to judicial custody on 15.09.1994. Further, on 21.10.1994 the services of the appellant were terminated. On 15.11.1994, the appellant upon being released on bail was given an oral assurance by the respondent that he will be reinstated to the post after his acquittal by the Court.

       On 11.07.2002, upon being acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hissar, the appellant reported to join his duty, but he was informed by the respondent that his services stood terminated w.e.f. 21.10.1994. The appellant served the demand notice upon the respondent which was not acceded to and therefore, the industrial dispute with regard to order of termination from his services was raised.

       The industrial dispute in relation to the order of dismissal of the appellant from his services was referred by the State Government.

       The Labour Court declared that the termination of the appellant from his services was illegal and passed an award of reinstatement of the appellant with 60% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice till publication of the award and full back wages thereafter, till reinstatement.

       The High Court set aside the award and remanded the case back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in the light of the applicability of the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, to the appellant/workman.

       The Labour Court answered the reference against the appellant on the ground that the reference of the industrial dispute was time barred.

       The Civil Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.

       The appellant Letters Patent Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment and order is not sustainable.