Hon'ble Single Judge set aside an industrial tribunal award made under a belated reference, holding inordinate delay and absence of an industrial dispute vitiated the reference and violated the object of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Impugned award dated 17.11.2015 and consequential orders set aside; writ petition 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. - 41557 of 2016
Petitioner :- Union of India Respondent :- Kamlesh Baboo Counsel for Petitioner :- Tarun Varma,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Jeetendra Kumar Sharma,Durga Tiwari,Shesh Kumar Srivastav,Shesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
made.
"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.
question."
impugned award dated 17.11.2015 is vitiated and unsustainable in law.
Order Date :- 17.11.2021 Nadeem
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a reference to the industrial tribunal made after a lapse of seven years is barred by delay and laches.
Whether an industrial dispute existed or could be apprehended to justify a reference under Section 10.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and othersExplained¶10
(2000) 2 SCC 455 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. and another Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court and anotherFollowed¶9
2021 (7) ADJ 670
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Kamlesh Baboo
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
