2015 (9) TMI 1546 - SC - Indian Laws

Period of limitation for taking dispute at belated stage - industrial dispute - Held that - Although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference Under Section 10(1) of the 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 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. On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that High Court correctly decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had not jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in raising the industrial dispute.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the appropriate Government to make a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. The existence of an industrial dispute at the time of reference.
4. Judicial review of the Government's decision to make or refuse a reference.
5. Moulding of relief by the Labour Court in case of delayed disputes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Raising the Industrial Dispute:
The primary issue was the delay of fourteen years in raising the industrial dispute by the Petitioner, whose services were terminated on April 01, 1985, but who approached the appropriate Government only in 1999. The High Court held that there was no 'live' dispute due to this delay, and hence, the appropriate Government had no jurisdiction to make a reference for a non-existent dispute.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the Appropriate Government to Make a Reference:
The judgment emphasized that under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government has the power to refer a dispute to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal if it is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This power is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Government must satisfy itself that there is a factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension before making a reference.

3. The Existence of an Industrial Dispute at the Time of Reference:
The Court discussed that an industrial dispute must be existing or apprehended at the time of making the reference. If a workman raises a dispute after a considerable delay, it must be shown that the dispute is still alive and has not become stale. The Court highlighted that a dispute arises when a demand is made by one party and rejected by the other. If no demand is made for a long period, it can be presumed that the workman accepted the termination, and the dispute ceased to exist.

4. Judicial Review of the Government's Decision to Make or Refuse a Reference:
The Court held that the Government's decision to make or refuse a reference is subject to judicial review. If the Government's decision is based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, it can be challenged. However, the adequacy or sufficiency of the material on which the opinion was formed is beyond judicial scrutiny. The Court can review if the Government had material before it and whether it applied its mind to the material.

5. Moulding of Relief by the Labour Court in Case of Delayed Disputes:
The Court noted that even if the dispute is raised belatedly, the Labour Court can mould the relief. This could include granting reinstatement without back wages or awarding compensation instead of reinstatement. The Court emphasized that while the law of limitation does not apply, the workman must show that the dispute is still alive despite the delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the reference made by the appropriate Government after fourteen years was not valid as the dispute was not existing. The special leave petition was dismissed, emphasizing that very stale claims should not be encouraged unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The judgment reinforced the principle that the existence of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making a reference, and delays without justification can lead to the presumption that the dispute is no longer alive.

← Previous Next →