Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Hygienic Foods vs Jasbir Singh . on 8 May, 2014
\202? 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3784 OF 2010
B. Yellappa Appellant
VERSUS
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Respondent
O R D E R
1. Though a letter has been circulated on behalf of the appellant seeking adjournment, yet regard being had to the controversy which involves a workman and the management, namely, M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., we think it apposite to deal with it.
2. In this appeal, the assail is to the decision rendered by the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 942 of 2007 whereby the High Court interpreting Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 opined that the management is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner, who is an office bearer of an association or of a federation of employers, notwithstanding that the authorised person is a legal practitioner, for the stipulations incorporated in sub-section (4) of Section 36 would not act as a bar. 2
3. After the matter travelled to this Court and notice was issued on the special leave petition as also on the prayer for interim relief, following order came to be passed on 23.04.2010:
"Leave granted.
Hearing expedited.
The pendency of the appeal shall not operate as stay of proceedings before the Labour Court. Proceedings before the Labour Court shall continue subject, however, to the condition that no side shall be represented before it by any practising lawyer or anyone who has a subsisting and alive licence granted by any Bar Councils under the Advocates, Act."
4. We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the respondent that by virtue of this order, the proceedings are continuing. Regard being had to the interim order and the agony and anguish of the workman, which still remains unadjudicated for almost two decades, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and direct the Presiding Officer, Ist Labour Court, Bengaluru to dispose of the Application No.10 of 1995 if it has not yet been disposed of in the meantime, by end of October, 2014. The factum of disposal shall be intimated to the Registry of this Court. Needless to emphasise, the Presiding Officer has to bear in mind that there has to be rendition of decision in quite promptitude. We make it clear neither the management nor the workman 3 shall seek unnecessary adjournments, for procrastination of this kind of litigation creates a dent in the adjudication of disputes pertaining to industrial harmony.
5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
........................J. (DIPAK MISRA) ........................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI MAY 08, 2014 4 ITEM NO.201 COURT NO.13 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10138/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 13/11/2009 in CWP No.4322/2007, LPA No.250/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) M/S. HYGIENIC FOODS Petitioner(s) VERSUS JASBIR SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) (For final disposal) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 3784 of 2010 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 08/05/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.V. Palli, Adv.
Mrs.Rekha Palli, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Raina, Adv.
Mrs Sarla Chandra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv. CA 3784/10 Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 10138/2010
1. Heard Mr. A.V. Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner-management and Mr. Tushar Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen. The controversy 5 in this special leave petition has arisen from the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 250/09 in CWP No. 4722/07 decided on 13.11.2009 whereby the High Court by a majority view, placing reliance on the decision in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip V. Their Workmen, (1977) 2 SCC 339, has rejected the plea of the management on the foundation that the person engaged by it was debarred under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2010, while issuing notice had directed that there shall be stay of the impugned order. We have been apprised at the Bar that after the judgment has been stayed, as there was no direction for the stay of the proceeding, the proceedings before the Labour Court is continuing.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to direct the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana to decide all the pending references i.e. Reference Nos. 1867/99, 1869/99, 1870/99, 108/2000, 112/2000, 136/2000, 150/2000, 151/2000 995/2002 and 892/2003 by end of October, 2014. Needless to say, the issue of law is kept open. Neither the petitioner-management nor the respondents shall seek unnecessary adjournments before 6 the Labour Court.
4. We may hasten to add the purpose of establishing the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the management and the workmen is meant for speedy disposal of disputes, sustain industrial harmony and see that the workmen are not put to unnecessary jeopardy. The long continuance of the proceeding destroys the health of the industrial growth. Hence, the direction to the Labour Court to finalise the matters by end of October, 2014. We further direct that the factum of disposal of the matters shall be intimated by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to the Registry of this Court.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the special leave petition is disposed of without any order as to cost.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3784 OF 2010 Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(NAVEEN KUMAR) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)