Food Corporation of India vs Presiding Officer and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The management has filed the present petition impugning the award dated 20.9.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (for short, ''the Tribunal''), whereby the management has been directed to give respondent No. 2-workman (for short, ''the workman '') benefit of the memorandum of settlement, as was granted to other employees. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner is a Corporation created under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. It is carrying on the business of procurement, storage and distribution of food grains in the country. The workman was working as Home Guard volunteer with Punjab Home Guards and was deputed for duty at Food Corporation of India Depot for security. He was paid salary by Home Guard Department. At the time of raising of demand notice, the workman claimed that he had worked with the management from February, 1980 till June, 1981. The demand was raised in the year 1996 with a plea that on 15.2.1989, there was a settlement made between the workmen and the management, in terms of which similarly situated workmen, who had been engaged as Home Guards volunteer, but had been working for security of the food storage depots were taken back in service and regularised. The Tribunal having accepted the claim made by the workman, the management is before this court.

Learned counsel for the management submitted that in fact, the workman was never appointed by the management. It is admitted case of the workman himself that he was a Home Guard volunteer working with Home Guard Department, Punjab and was being paid salary by it. He was merely deputed for security of food storage depots under the control of the Corporation. Once he was not appointed by the management and was not paid wages by it, there was no question of claiming that any action/in-ac-tion of the management in the case in hand was illegal, which entitled any relief to the workman. Learned counsel for the management, placing reliance upon Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar, ; Priti Pal v. The Presiding Officer and others, 2008(1) S.C.T. 753: 2008(2) RSJ 413 (P & H) and General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon Vs. Bharat Lal and Another, further submitted that in the present case, the dispute having been raised by the workman more than 15 years after his services were allegedly terminated, the claim was otherwise required to be dismissed on account of delay and laches, as the industrial dispute was not subsisting after 15 years, which could enable the workman to invoke the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the claim of the workman in the demand notice was not that his services had been illegally terminated, rather, he claimed that he should also be given the benefit, as has been granted to other workmen who were similarly placed in terms of the settlement dated 15.2.1989. In the aforesaid settlement, the workmen, who were similarly placed as the workman was, and were appointed as Home Guards and assigned security duty of the food storage depots, were reinstated back in service. The cause of action arose to the workman only after his case was not considered in terms of the settlement. There is no question of any delay in raising the dispute as the settlement was made in the year 1989. When action in terms thereof was not taken, the reminders were also sent in the years 1992 and 1994. Demand notice was got issued in the year 1996.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The undisputed facts on record are that the workman was working as Home Guard and was being paid salary by Home Guard Department but had been deputed for security of food storage depots under the control of the management. The demand notice was issued in the year 1996, i.e., more than 15 years after the last month the workman worked as Home Guard. The claim for reinstatement is sought to be made on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the workmen and the management on 15.2.1989. A copy of the settlement has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. A perusal of the aforesaid settlement shows that it was entered into between the management and the representatives of Class-IV employees'' Union with reference to number of cases pending and decided under the Act. All the pending disputes in different courts were to be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen. It is not in dispute that after the workman had stopped working on security duty at food storage depot, he did not raise any dispute either with his employer, namely, Home Guard Department or the petitioner. By raising a demand notice in the year 1996, parity is sought to be claimed with the workmen/employees who had raised industrial dispute immediately after termination of their services and on account of various orders passed by different courts, the matter in dispute was settled between the management and the employees.

To plead continuing cause of action, learned counsel for the workman sought to place reliance upon two circulars dated 24.8.1992 and 19.5.1994 issued by the management. The aforesaid letters do not have any relation with one time settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen pertaining to the disputes which were pending before various courts. The aforesaid circulars have reference only for regularisation of services of certain employees who were causal or daily rate workers. In the present case, otherwise also the workman cannot claim the benefit of these two circulars for the reason that the workman was never employed by the management as he was not paid any salary by it. It is admitted case of the workman that he was employed as Home Guard and was being paid salary by Home Guard Department. However, he was deputed on duty in food storage depot of the management, hence, he could not claim that he was working with the management on casual or daily rate basis.

In The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, delay of seven years was held to be fatal and the workman was held disentitled to any relief.

In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, , Hon''ble the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the respondents in approaching the Labour Court after more than 7 years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing to grant relief to them. It further held that though Court cannot import limitation period when statute does not prescribe but at the same it does not mean that stale claim should be entertained and relief granted by the authority concerned under the Act.

In Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar, eight years'' delay in raising the industrial dispute was held to be fatal for claiming any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The issue regarding raising the industrial dispute after a long delay was considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Ravi Kumar, , wherein the respondent did not choose to challenge the termination for 14 years. Hon''ble the Supreme Court therein held that since reference was stale, it ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. The relevant para has been reproduced hereunder:

This court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred-vid The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, and Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, (2002) 1 LLJ 457SC . We may also refer to the decision of Regl. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. M/s. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., , wherein this court observed that: (SCC p.182, para 4).

4....when a power is conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked, the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably, and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness.

Similar issue was also considered by this court in Director, Food and Supplies and Another Vs. Ashwani Kumar and Another, , titled as Director, Food and Supplies Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and another, decided on 24.2.2004, 2007(1) S.C.T. 207: C.W.P. No. 932 of 2006, titled as Management of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , titled as Management of M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.1.2009 and C.W.P. No. 19430 of 2010 Kesar Singh v. Presiding Officer and others, decided on 28.82012, wherein it has been held that demand notice issued by the workman by raising an industrial dispute after a delay of more than 7 years is ex-facie bad and incompetent and therefore, the reference was held to be not maintainable before the Labour Court. It was further held that appropriate Government should also examine cautiously raising of stale demand and only if the workman is able to render reasonable explanation for the delay and is able to spell out existence and subsistence of industrial dispute, such reference for adjudication would be sustainable. If such explanation is not forthcoming and the industrial dispute does not remain in existence, such stale demand should not be entertained.

In the present case, the dispute was raised by the respondent-workman more than 15 years after he had allegedly worked for a period of about one year and four months in the year 1980-81, hence, on account of delay and laches, the claim of the respondent-workman deserves to be rejected.

Still further, the settlement which is sought to be referred by the respondent-workman to claim the relief, was arrived at between the management and some workmen way back on 15.2.1989 while referring to the court cases which were pending or decided by different courts at that time. Undisputedly, the respondent-workman had never raised any dispute at that time. The same cannot give a cause of action to the respondent-workman to seek benefit from the court stating that non-grant of same benefit to him in the present case amounts to an industrial dispute. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

The petition stands disposed of.