Allowed

Hanuman Deen v. State of U.P Thru Pramukh Sachiv Labour Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025WRIC/24685/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Labour Court order rejecting an industrial dispute reference solely for 13 years' delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that no limitation applies and delay cannot by itself defeat a reference, the High Court quashed the rejection and directed decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.03.2016 quashed; Labour Court directed to decide the reference on merits in accordance with law expeditiously; parties to bear own costs.

Hanuman Deen Vs State of U.P Thru Pramukh… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6028

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24685 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Hanuman Deen

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Pramukh Sachiv Labour Lko And Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Sharma,Deepti Singh,Yadukul Shiromani Srivast

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Sarvesh Kumar Verma

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Y.S. Lohit learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶9

Petition has been field challenging order dated 16th March, 2016 passed by Labour Court rejecting reference under Section 4 having been made with regard to application submitted by petitioner only on the ground of delay of 13 years.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since there is no limitation period prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the reference only on the ground of delay of 13 years having been effected in raising industrial dispute. It is submitted that the order impugned also indicates certain presumptions pertaining to number of years for which record is kept, without any such plea being taken by the opposite parties. He has adverted to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC 1351.

¶11

Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that even though there is no limitation period prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, an application raising industrial dispute nonetheless is required to be filed within a reasonable period so that the relevant documents can be preserved pertaining to such a dispute. It is further submitted that the Labour Court while passing impugned order has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Andhra Pradesh High Court which is also clearly applicable in the present case.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that industrial reference raised at the behest of petitioner has been rejected by means of impugned order primarily on the ground of delay of 13 years in raising such a dispute.

¶13

Admittedly there is no limitation period prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for raising such an industrial dispute.

¶14

The aforesaid aspect has already been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra) in the following terms:-

¶15

"10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages"

¶16

The same is the situation in the case of Jai Bhagwan versus Management of the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Limited , A.I.R. 1984 SC 286 in which jurisdiction of labour court was invoked after 14 years but instead of full back wages, grant of 60% of back wages was directed in view of delay.

¶17

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that there is no limitation period prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for raising industrial dispute at the behest of an allegedly retrenched employee. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that even in case of delayed application, the same may have bearing with regard to restriction on the back wages to be granted in case the reference is allowed.

¶18

In the impugned order, delay has been taken to be a ground for rejecting reference primarily on the aspect that in cases of muster roll employees, it can not be assumed that records pertaining to such employees would be retained for a period of 13 years.

¶19

In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground could be considered in case it is raised by the employer and no such

¶20

finding should have been recorded by the Labour Court even before the opposite parties have taken such a ground. The impugned order dated 16th March, 2016 therefore being found to be against the settled law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated herein above, the same is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari with a further writ in the nature of Mandamus to the Labour Court concerned to decide the reference on its merits in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶21

Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 prabhat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hanuman Deen v. State of U.P Thru Pramukh Sachiv Labour Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Deen v. State of U.P Thru Pramukh Sachiv Labour Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsher Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative, Lko. and Others

Helping Youth Foundation a Registered Society Thru. Treasurer Prem Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Jai Ram Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. and 6 Others

C/M Thru. Om Sri Sai Manav Kalyan Seva Santhan Lakpedabagh Thru. Mgr., Smt. Asha Verma and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Seema Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Pyari Dwivedi and Other vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Finance Govt. of U.P. Lko and 6 Others