9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1498 - HC - Indian LawsRefusal to make a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - raising the dispute after 24 years of termination - Whether appropriate Government can refuse to make a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of delay and latches? - Whether the Government can take up the role of Adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference be made or not? HELD THAT - The intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the words used under Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1947, therefore, it is not open for the appropriate Government to travel beyond the intention of the legislature and it could not be presumed that the legislature has committed mistake in not providing limitation period while interpreting the statutory provision. Thus, it can safely be held that it would not be open for the appropriate Government, while exercising the powers under Section 10 (1) of the Act to decide the question whether the claim of the workman is stale or not. Hence, it is clear that the delay and latches itself cannot be a ground for refusing to make a Reference. If a person is guilty of delay and latches, it may be a ground for the Labour Court, either to refuse to grant any relief or refuse to grant relief of back wages. The Government cannot take up the role of an Adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference should be made or not. While referring the dispute, the appropriate Government can formulate the question of Delay Latches to be decided by the Labour Court as a preliminary issue while simultaneously also making a reference on the industrial dispute to be decided on secondary issue. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, the Government is directed to make a Reference of the dispute - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appropriate Government can refuse to make a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground of delay and latches? 2. Whether the Government can take up the role of Adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference be made or not? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Refusal to Make Reference on Grounds of Delay and Latches The petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 19.12.2011, where the appropriate Government refused to make a Reference to the Labour Court due to a 24-year delay in raising the dispute. The petitioner argued that no limitation period is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for raising an industrial dispute and seeking a reference. The petitioner cited precedents like Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways to support this contention. The court reviewed various precedents, noting that no statutory limitation period exists for making a reference under Section 10 of the Act. However, the Government must exercise this power reasonably and not in a mechanical fashion. The court cited judgments such as State of Bombay vs. K.P. Krishnan and others, Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay, and Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar to emphasize that while the Government has discretion, it should not adjudicate the dispute's merits. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in cases like Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors and Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, which held that the Government's power to refer a dispute is coextensive with the dispute's existence. The court also noted that the delay could be relevant in deciding whether the dispute has become stale but should not be the sole ground for refusal. Issue 2: Government's Role as Adjudicating Authority The court held that the Government's role under Section 10(1) of the Act is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Government must form an opinion on whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended but should not adjudicate the dispute's merits. This principle was supported by judgments like Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar and Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. General Employees' Association. The court cited the Larger Bench decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shri Jai Singh Vs. State of H.P., which outlined that the Government must apply its mind and not act mechanically. The Government can consider delay while forming an opinion but should not refuse to make a reference solely on this ground. The court emphasized that the Labour Court should adjudicate the merits of the dispute, including any issues of delay and latches. Conclusion The court quashed the impugned order, directing the Government to make a Reference of the dispute. The court clarified that delay and latches could be grounds for the Labour Court to refuse relief or back wages but not for the Government to refuse making a reference. The court suggested that the Government could formulate the question of delay and latches as a preliminary issue for the Labour Court to decide. Final Judgment The impugned order was quashed, and the Government was directed to make a Reference of the dispute. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
|
