Hari Singh Jatav and Others vs The Judge, Labour Court and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the different awards dated 21.0.2011, 21.3.2012 and 23.3.2012 respectively whereby industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur by the appropriate government was answered against the workmen. The terms of the reference included the first question (i) whether the raising of dispute with delay of 17 years was legal and proper, (ii) whether the workmen had worked 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment on 31.8.1988 and (iii) whether the petitioner-workman was removed from service by the respondents and if yes whether such removal was legal and valid and if not what relief was workmen entitled to.

The learned Labour Court in CW Nos. 17056/12 and 17013/12 even though in answer to question Nos. 2 and 3 has held that the workmen worked for more than 240 days, but they failed to prove the violation of provisions of Section 25G and 25H and therefore finally answered the reference in the terms that the dispute having been raised with delay of 17 years and there being no explanation for such delay, petitioner-workmen were not entitled to any relief. In CW No. 580/14, the Labour Court in addition to delay of 17 years also did not find violation of Section 25-F, 25G and 25H of the Act proved by the workman.

Shri S.K. Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is ample law on the subject that even if a reference has been belatedly raised, the relief can be moulded by denying the back wages corresponding to the period of delay, but the labour court cannot decline to grant relief in these matters. The Labour Court CW Nos. 17056/12 and 17013/12 having held that the working of the petitioners with the respondent for more than 240 days was proved, could not have refused to decline their retrenchment as illegal and should direct their reinstatement with continuity of service. He has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The delay of 17 years is enormous in the present matters. The Labour Court cannot said to have erred in law in holding that the petitioners would not be entitled to any relief because in the terms of reference, the first question that was referred to the Labour Court was precisely whether the workman having raised the dispute with delay of 17 years would be entitled to any relief. The Labour Court in support of the awards has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and Another Vs. Sham Lal, , Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar, , U.P. State Road Transport v. Babul Ram 2000 (4) SCC (L&S) 1113 and division bench judgment of this Court in Gopi Lal Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Another, . In all the aforesaid judgments it was held by the Supreme Court and this Court that if reference is made with enormous delay, the Labour Court can decline to grant any relief to the workman.

The Supreme Court in The Management of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahlad, in para 12 and 13 has held as under:

"Whether relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case claim was made almost after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifying ground and there was nothing on record to explain this delay as held by the Tribunal. When the respondent did not make claim for 13 years without any justification and on merits also he had no case, the Tribunal did not rightly grant him any relief. Even otherwise the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal in the light of the Standing Orders aforementioned cannot be said to be untenable or perverse.

Thus we find merit in the appeal. Hence it is allowed for the reasons stated above. The order of the learned single Judge and that of the Division Bench affirming the same impugned in this appeal are set aside and the award of the Tribunal is restored. Parties to bear their own costs in this appeal."

The Supreme Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Borad and Others, made certain useful observation in para 15, which may be of relevance for deciding the present cases. It read as under:

"15. There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case when the Government have chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while moulding its reliefs. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the Government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination."

In view of above, I find no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.