This order dismissed a writ petition challenging a government order refusing to refer a dispute to the labor court due to a six-year delay. The single judge upheld the refusal, relying on the delay factor and distinguishing precedents on the authority's power to inquire into merits.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No. 19322 of 2003
O R D E R:
Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K.Venkat Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3Depot Manager of APSRTC, Kurnool-I and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The short point which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the impugned order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the respondent No.1 refusing to refer a dispute raised on behalf of the petitioner to the labour court or tribunal on the ground of delay of six years is appropriate or not.
3. The petitioner was earlier employed in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’) in the respondent No.3 depot. At the relevant point of time, he was working as conductor in the respondent No.3-depot at Kurnool. A domestic enquiry was commenced against him on certain charges relating to cash and ticket irregularities. He was removed from service by the respondent No.3 by an order dated 15.4.1993. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and the concerned appellate authority rejected the said appeal. The petitioner filed a review petition/revision petition before the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool, who modified the punishment order passed by the respondent No.3 to the extent of reinstatement but his annual increments were stopped for two years with cumulative effect. However, the period of absence during the suspension period was not treated as duty. It is seen that the petitioner through the relevant workers’ union moved for conciliation proceedings. The conciliation
proceedings were held and ultimately the conciliation officer reported that the conciliation proceedings failed and he accordingly submitted a report to the Government. It is clear that the petitioner and his union were seeking a reference. The Government however by the impugned order dated 4.10.2002 refused to refer the matter to the labour court on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of six years in seeking the reference. While passing the impugned order the authority relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court given in Shalimar Works Limited V. Their Workman[1] and also the decision of this Court in WP No.22206 of 2000 between Tirupathi Transport Worker’s Union V.The Principal Secretary to Government.
4. Sri Ravi Mohan argued that the question of delay cannot be considered by the Government and the same has to be decided by the court/tribunal to which the reference is made and that therefore, the impugned order is illegal. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of Delhi High Court given in Sri Ram V. and others V.Delta Airlines Inc .[2] ; a decision of High Court of Orissa given in Alekh Bihari Rout V.Union of India[3] and a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh given in M.P.Iron & Steel Co. V.State of M.P .[4]
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and the learned Government Pleader relied upon the decisions mentioned in the impugned order of the Government and further pointed out that since the punishment was modified into a lesser one, the petitioner did not bother to agitate it, but however, subsequently, he approached the Union in the year 2002 and that there is an unexplained delay of six years.
6. It may be noted that in Sri Ram’s case (2 supra) the Court considered the question whether the authority u/Sec.10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis and answered it in the negative. In Alekh Bihari Rout’s case (3 supra), the principle laid down is that the Government is precluded from considering prima-facie merits of the dispute while taking a decision to make a reference. In M.P.Iron & Steel Co., case (4 supra) the decision of government in referring the matter was questioned on the ground that there was no industrial dispute. The said decisions are not relevant to the point of delay.
7. It may be noted that in Shalimar work’s case (1 supra) the Supreme Court dealt with the question of delay in making reference of the case and held that the delayed reference itself is sufficient to refuse to answer it and this principle was laid down, of course, while stating that the delay factor has to be considered along with other reasons also. This court in WP No.22206 of 2000 relied upon by the government while passing the impugned order went into the delay factor and upheld refusal.
8. In the present case, the punishment was modified by imposing lesser one as per the order of the competent authority dated 18.11.1995. It is clear that in this case, there is a delay of five years on the part of the petitioner in approaching his Union and moving the matter by the Union.
9. The very fact that the joint meeting was fixed on 17.6.2002 would show that the proceedings started some where in the early part of 2002. This itself shows that there was a delay of five years on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Union. There is no reasonable explanation given by the petitioner for the above delay. It appears that the petitioner was satisfied with lesser punishment and kept quite. Thus having observed all these things and especially the delay factor, it can be said that the government had rightly refused to make the reference on the ground of delay by relying upon the decision in the case of Shalimar Work’s case (1 supra).
10. For the aforesaid reasons, it follows that there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
_______________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J
Dt. 05.12.2012 Mjl/*
[1] 1959-II-LLJ-26 [2] 2000(1) LLJ page 158 [3] 2000(1) LLJ page 256 [4] 1996(2) LLJ 383
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can interfere with an order of the Government refusing to refer an industrial dispute due to six years delay?
Whether the Government is precluded from considering the prima facie merits of the dispute while deciding whether to make a reference?
Whether an inordinate delay of six years in approaching the Union and seeking reference justifies refusing the reference despite modification of punishment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shalimar Works Ltd v. Their WorkmanRelied on¶11
Shalimar Works Ltd v. Their Workman
Tirupathi Transport Worker's Union v. The Principal Secretary to GovernmentRelied on¶11
WP No.22206 of 2000 between Tirupathi Transport Worker's Union v. The Principal Secretary to Government
Sri Ram v. and others v. Delta Airlines IncDistinguished¶8
Sri Ram v. and others v. Delta Airlines Inc
Alekh Bihari Rout v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶8
Alekh Bihari Rout v. Union of India
M.P.Iron & Steel Co. v. State of M.PDistinguished¶8
M.P.Iron & Steel Co. v. State of M.P
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Good Road Transport Corporation
Principal Secretary, Labour Department
Depot Manager of APSRTC, Kurnool-I
N. Ravi Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
