Allowed

Gopal Lal Napit v. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2025CW/3277/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against Labour Court award rejecting a workman's termination claim for inordinate delay of 16 years in raising the dispute after reference by the State Government. Holding that once a dispute is referred under Section 10(1), only the Government may consider delay, the Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Award dated 08.02.2006 set aside; matter remanded to Labour Court, Bharatpur to decide the industrial dispute on merits within one year.

Gopal Lal Napit Vs Judge, Labour Court… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46885]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3277/2006

¶4

Gopal Lal Napit S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Bamanwas Khurd, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

TheJudge, Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dausa. 3. The Asstt. Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Lalsot, District, Dausa.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Shah, Sr. Adv. assisted
	byMr. Nakul Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. G.K. Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

20/11/2025

¶13

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the challenge the award dated 08.02.2006, passed by the learned Labour Court in LCR No. 164/2001, whereby the claim of the petitioner to set aside his termination was rejected while observing that same has been raised with an inordinate delay of 16 years.

¶14

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the State Government has referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, the learned Labour Court cannot reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay in raising the dispute. It is only the State Government which can take into consideration the delay part while making reference of

[2025:RJ-JP:46885]

[CW-3277/2006]

(2 of 5)

the dispute whether the dispute is to be referred to the Labour Court or not. He further submits that in the Industrial Disputes Act which is a welfare legislation for the labours, no limitation has been prescribed for referring the disputes to the Labour Court.

¶19

3. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of law there is no limitation period prescribed for reference of the dispute, and therefore the award of the learned Labour Court deserves to be set aside.

¶20

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner workman has raised industrial dispute after an inordinate delay of 16 years and therefore the award of the learned Labour Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay is just and proper.

¶21

5. Considered the submissions made at Bar.

¶22

6. Chapter III of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the reference of the dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.

¶23

7. Section 10(1) deals with the reference of dispute to the Boards, Courts or Tribunal, which reads as under:-

¶24

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.— (1) [Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing,

¶25

a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or

¶26

(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or

¶27

[(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or

¶28

(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication:

(3 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:46885]

[CW-3277/2006]

Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):] [Provided further that] where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: [Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.]"

¶33

8. Sub-section (c) of Section 10(1) says that wherever the appropriate government is of the opinion that the industrial dispute exists, it may, at any time, by order in writing, refer the dispute to a Labour Court for adjudication.

¶34

9. In Section 10(1), the legislature, with a clear intention has used the word “it may at any time” which shows that the Law Framing Authority is of the intent that the industrial dispute can be referred to the Labour Court at any point of time.

¶35

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Anr.; SLP (C) NO. 27080/2015, decided on 07.09.2015 , wherein vide Para 44 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶36

"44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:46885]

[CW-3277/2006]

ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry"

¶41

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that it is for the appropriate government to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference, meaning thereby, it is only the appropriate government which can take a decision whether after a lapse of certain period the industrial dispute is required to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication or not. Once the dispute is referred to by the appropriate Government to the Court or Tribunal that it is to be decided on its merit, the delay part can be taken into consideration while granting relief. The Labour Court cannot reject the claim merely because it has been referred after a lapse of period.

¶42

12. In the present matter, the appropriate government i.e. State Government had referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication and therefore the Labour Court is ceized with the matter to decide the industrial dispute on merit. It is only the appropriate government which can take into consideration the delay part while making reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court is under obligation to adjudicate the industrial dispute on merit.

¶43

13. During the course of argument, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also referred an award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No. 444/2021; Abdul; Jabbar Vs. Assistant Engineer, Panchana, Irrigation Sub-Division

[2025:RJ-JP:46885]

[CW-3277/2006]

(5 of 5)

II, Karauli , wherein the industrial dispute which was referred with a delay of 17 years has been decided and adjudicated on merit and submitted that the Labour Court cannot discriminate between two workmen while considering the industrial dispute.

¶48

14. In view of the discussion made above, this Court of the firm opinion that once the appropriate government i.e. the State Government in the present case has referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication, the Labour Court is under obligation to decide industrial dispute on merit. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay is unsustainable and contrary to the mandate of the legislature as intended in the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶49

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 16. The award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 08.02.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court, Bhartpur for deciding the Industrial dispute referred to Labour Court by the appropriate government on merits.

¶50

17. Since the termination is of the year 1983, the Labour Court is directed to conclude the adjudication proceedings as early as possible after following due process of law preferably within a period of one year.

¶51

18. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 10^th of December 2025.

¶52

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶53

Gaurav Srivastava /259

Gopal Lal Napit v. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Lal Napit v. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur

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

Shri Om Prakash S/O Tuliya, Since Deceased Vs the Executive Engineer

Gajendra Puri Vs State Education Departmentors

Rajenra Prasad Gawariya Vs State Tansport Dep Anr.

Jabbar Singh S/O Late Shri Madan Singh Vs General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.

Smt Manbhar Mahawar Vs State Medical and Healthors

Vinod Chandrawal Vs Chief Administrative Secretary and Ors.