Allowed¶31

Hari Chand v. Union of India and Others

Industrial Dispute Act, S.10(1) – Refusal of reference

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Sept 2024CWP/3736/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal to refer industrial dispute under Section 10(1) Industrial Dispute Act quashed; delay/staleness alone insufficient; application of mind and consideration of workman's explanation for delay mandatory; preliminary-issue device on delay; HP High Court, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., 13.09.2024, CWP No.3736 of 2019, applying Jai Singh v. State of H.P. (CWP No.2190 of 2020).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 11.06.2019 quashed and set aside; respondents directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶31

Hari Chand Vs Union of India and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the appropriate Government could refuse to refer the petitioner's industrial dispute to the Central Labour & Industrial Tribunal solely on the ground that it was raised after more than 15 years of cause of action and had therefore become stale.

¶20

Court's answer

In deciding to make or refuse a reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1), the appropriate Government must apply its mind to relevant considerations and cannot act mechanically as a post office.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Delay by itself does not denude the appropriate Government of its power to examine the advisability of making a reference; delay is merely relevant to deciding whether the dispute exists, has ceased to exist, become stale or faded away.

¶22

Key takeaways

Whether a dispute is alive, stale or nonexistent always depends on the facts of each case.ratio¶24
The Government may examine whether the workman/Union has been agitating the matter before an appropriate forum to keep the dispute alive, but failure to initiate such action does not necessarily mean the dispute has ceased to exist.ratio¶25
While deciding on a reference the Government need not give an elaborate opportunity of hearing to the workman, but is obliged to consider his explanation for the delay in making the demand.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Dispute Act, S.10(1) — Refusal of reference — Appropriate Government must apply its mind to relevant considerations and not act mechanically as a post office; delay alone does not denode its power to refer — liveness or staleness of a dispute depends on facts of each case; Government need not grant elaborate hearing but must consider the workman's explanation for delay — where staleness requires elaborate examination, reference may be made with delay framed as preliminary issue (following Jai Singh v. State of H.P., CWP No.2190 of 2020, decided 30.03.2022) — rejection of reference solely because demand raised after more than 15 years of cause of action is non-speaking and bereft of reasons — impugned order dated 11.06.2019 quashed; respondents to proceed afresh preferably within four weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3736 of 2019 Date of decision: 13.09.2024

¶3

Hari Chand. ...Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Coram:

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. B.N. Vasishta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

CMP-16549 of 2024

¶12

The application for early hearing is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

¶13

CWP No.3852 of 2020

¶14

With the consent of the learned counsel for the

¶15

parties, matter is heard at this stage.

¶16

The grievance of the petitioner is to impugned order dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by

¶17

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶18

-2-

¶19

respondent No.1, refusing to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication by the Central Labour & Industrial Tribunal for the following cited reason:-

¶20

“The dispute has been raised after more than 15 years of cause of action, therefore, becomes stale.”

¶21

It is well settled law that the appropriate Government in discharging the administrative functions of taking a decision to make or refuse to make, reference of the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, has to apply its mind on relevant considerations and not to act mechanically as a post office.

¶22

Even the delay by itself does not denude the appropriate Government of its power to examine the advisability of making reference of the industrial dispute though the delay would certainly be relevant for deciding the basic question, as to whether or not the industrial dispute “exists” which also includes the decision to find out whether on account of delay the dispute has ceased to exist or has ceased to be alive or has become stale or has faded away.

¶23

-3-

¶24

Whether or not a dispute is alive or has become stale or nonexistent, would always depend on the facts of each case.

¶25

The appropriate Government in arriving at the decision to make a reference of industrial dispute or otherwise, in context of delay, may examine whether the workman/Union has been agitating the matter before the appropriate forum so as to keep the dispute alive, which, however, does not necessarily mean that in a case where such action has not been initiated, the dispute has ceased to exist.

¶26

The appropriate Government while taking a decision on question of making reference, need not provide an elaborate opportunity of hearing to the workman but is under an obligation to consider his explanation for delay in making the demand.

¶27

Where the appropriate Government while examining the question of making a reference of industrial dispute arrives at a decision that on account of delay the dispute has ceased to exist or alive, would require elaborate examination of the evidence, it may while making a reference

¶28

-4-

¶29

of the industrial dispute, additionally formulate question on this aspect to be decided as preliminary issue while simultaneously also making a reference on the industrial dispute to be decided as secondary issue (Reference Sh. Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.² ).

¶30

In the backdrop of above legal position, the impugned order has to be held as non-speaking & bereft of reasons. The impugned orders also does not disclose any application of mind. Dispute raised by the petitioner has been declined to be referred to the Central Labour & Industrial Tribunal, simply on the ground that it has been raised after more than 15 years of cause of action. The respondents are required to comply with the principles of law laid down in Jai Singh’s case (extracted above).

¶31

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 11.06.2019 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed the proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law. Appropriate order in that regard be passed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.

¶32

2CWP No.2190 of 2020 decided on 30.03.2022 (HP High Court)

¶33

-5-

¶34

Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also

¶35

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶36

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 12^th September, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)

Hari Chand v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Chand v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mala Devi Vs Hitesh Kumar

Rustam Singh Vs C. Paulrasu and Anr.

Sanjeevna Kumari Vs the Collector Sub Division Gagrhet and Others

Kundan Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Amin Chand and Others Vs Kewal Kishore Kalra and Another

Shyam Lal and Another Vs Kali Dass and Others