State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs Sant Ram

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This petition is instituted against the award made by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in reference No. 65 of 2009 dated 23.8.2014.

Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was engaged in the month of May 1996. He was retrenched on 29.6.2000. He raised the industrial dispute. The reference No. 65 of 2009 was made to the learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The reference was decided in favour of the workman on 25.2.2012. Thereafter, the same was challenged before this Court. The matter was remanded on the question of limitation. The learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, again decided issue No. 3 in negative vide award dated 23.8.2014.

It would be apt at this stage to mention that the learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 25.2.2012 has held the workman entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages.

Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the reference was made belatedly and thus the same could not be adjudicated upon.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary at length and gone through both the awards carefully.

The workman was retrenched in the month of June, 2000. He has raised the demand notice on 30.5.2002 vide Ext. PW-4/A. It was received in the office of Executive Engineer, (I& PH), Rampur, on 10.6.2002. Since the workman had also filed OA against the retrenchment before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal, the demand notice was kept in abeyance as per Ext. PW-4/B. The OA preferred by the workman was dismissed in the year 2004. Thereafter, he submitted an application for the revival of the earlier demand notice vide Ext. PW-4/D. The reply was filed by the employer on 6.6.2008. The reference was made on 11.8.2009.

Mr. Rasveer Singh Negi, has appeared as RW-2. According to him, only in the year 2008, demand notice was served. Sh. Sohan Lal Jalota Labour Inspector, has testified that demand notice was diarized on 10.6.2002 and reply was also filed. He has also issued letter to the workman informing him that the proceedings were kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the workman has got the demand notice revived vide letter dated 26.5.2008.

The workman has raised the demand notice within a reasonable period and cannot be said that the same suffers from inordinate delay.

Their lordships'' of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager,Haryana Roadways, (2014) AIRSCW 5515 : (2014) 10 SCALE 135 , have held that the State Government can make the reference at any time. Their Lordships have held as under:

"13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services and Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.

Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and Others Vs. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 3553 : (2003) 97 FLR 608 : (2003) 3 JT 436 : (2003) 2 LLJ 359 : (2003) 3 SCALE 533 : (2003) 4 SCC 27 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 380 : (2003) 3 SCR 156 : (2003) AIRSCW 2196 : (2003) 3 Supreme 53 it was held by this Court as follows-

"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree...... In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 2276 : (1993) 3 JT 418 : (1993) LabIC 1672 : (1993) 2 LLJ 676 : (1993) 2 SCALE 974 : (1993) 4 SCC 67 Supp : (1993) 3 SCR 751 , it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief..... "

(Emphasis laid by the Court)

14.1 In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.

It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated at the instance of the respondent. Raising the industrial dispute belatedly and getting the same referred from the State Government to the Labour Court is for justifiable reason and the same is supported by law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Dock Labour Board (supra). Even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was a certain delay and latches on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting the same referenced for adjudication, the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief appropriately in favour of the workman. That has not been done at all by the Labour Court. Both the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in its Civil Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal have failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of termination passed by the respondent, the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment and order of the High Court are liable to be set aside. When we arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the next aspect is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits. We are of the view that the workman must be reinstated. However, due to delay in raising the industrial dispute, and getting it referred to the Labour Court from the State Government, the workman will be entitled in law for back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute i.e. from 02.03.2005 till reinstatement with all consequential benefits."

The learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has correctly decided issue No. 3 on the question of limitation against the employer.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.