The High Court set aside a labour court award on an industrial dispute reference. The court held that an inordinate seven-year delay rendered the reference stale, invalid under Section 10 as no dispute existed.
The impugned award dated 05.11.1996 and consequential orders are set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31394 of 1997 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T. Corporation Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samir Sharma,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S. Verma
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Devansh Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. None appears on behalf of the respondent workman. The name of counsel for the respondent workman is shown in the cause list.
The services of the petitioners were terminated on 07.11.1986. Reference of the industrial dispute was made on 27.08.1994. The belated reference prejudiced the case of the UPSRTC even before they entered the trial before the labour court. Evidence was lost to time and memory because of inordinate and inexplicable delay in making the reference. No industrial dispute was existing when the industrial reference was made. The narrative shall be reinforced by authorities in point.
Constitutional courts have set their face against belated references as such references defeat the purpose of the Act and do not contribute the industrial peace.
In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and others , reported at (2000) 2 SCC 455 , while determining the consequences of a delayed reference, it was held that such reference itself was destructive of industrial peace:
"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central
Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subjectmatter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.
More recently learned Single Judge of this Court Hon'ble J. J. Munir, J. in State of U.P. and another Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and another , reported at 2021 (7) ADJ 670 , has dealt with the issue in a scholarly fashion and has held that
inordinate delay in making a reference is being fatal to the cause for the workman.
In wake of the preceding discussion, the impugned award dated 05.11.1996 passed by the learned labour court and all consequential orders are liable to be set aside and are set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 12.11.2021 Pravin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an industrial reference made after a lapse of seven years when no dispute existed was valid under Section 10 of the Act.
Whether a belated reference defeats the purpose of the Act and destroys industrial peace.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and othersFollowed¶7
(2000) 2 SCC 455 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. and another Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and anotherFollowed¶11
2021 (7) ADJ 670
1 provisions across 1 enactments
U.P.S.R.T. Corporation
State of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
