Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs Abdul Salam on 11 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)KARLJ482
Author: R. Gururajan
Bench: R. Gururajan
JUDGMENT R. Gururajan, J.
1. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation is before us challenging the order dated 19-3-1999 passed in W.P. No. 8802 of 1999.
2. The facts in brief are as under.
3. The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short "Corporation") issued Articles of Charges on 19-6-1982 alleging short remittance by the respondent-Conductor (for short 'workman'). A detailed departmental proceedings were conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges. The Corporation accepting the said findings and issued an order of dismissal of the workman from service on 11-3-1985. The workman filed an appeal which came to be dismissed on 12-1-1986. Thereafter the workman raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court after a lapse of nine years. Claim petition was filed by the workman and the same was contested by the Corporation. Evidence was recorded before the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Corporation as being not fair and proper. Evidence was later recorded on merits and the Labour Court subsequently in its award has accepted the reference and ordered the Corporation to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages in addition to other benefits in the award dated 1-7-1997. The said award was challenged by the Corporation. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition.
4. Heard the learned Counsels on either side. Perused the material placed before this Court.
5. Appellants' Counsel took us through the pleadings and contended that the Labour Court has provided a relief in a belated reference. He refers to us the decisions in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bagalkot v. M.K. Ron and Ors. and Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr., in support of his case.
6. Per contra the learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order of the learned Judge. He refers to us the judgments in Ajaib Singh's case, supra, Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty 2and Ors., Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Prahlad Singh , Sapan Kumar Pandit v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors.
7. Admitted facts reveal that the dismissal has taken place in the year 1985 i.e., on 11-3-1985. Appeal filed by the workman was rejected on 12-1-1986. The workman had tried to explain the long delay of nine years in raising the dispute on the plea that he had filed a revision before the Board under Regulation 35 of the KSRTC Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 which was disposed of in the year 1994. But the Labour Court on the basis of materials produced before it negatived the plea and held that the delay had remained unexplained. Despite this fact, the Labour Court not only directed for reinstatement of the respondent-workman but also rewarded him with the back wages. Aggrieved by the award, the Corporation challenged the same before this Court in writ jurisdiction. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the same, Hence, this intra-Court appeal.
8. The question of delay in raising the disputes has been considered in several cases by the Apex Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen, has ruled as under in para 13:
"It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after a conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale, as in this case".
9. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, supra, has ruled that:
"Whether relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case the claim was made almost after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifying ground and there was nothing on record to explain this delay as held by CGIT. When the respondent did not make claim for 13 years without any justification and on merits also he had no case, CGIT did not rightly grant him any relief.....".
10. The Supreme Court again in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited, in paras 6 and 7 has ruled as under:
"Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time the reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question is made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.
In the present appeal it is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his dismissal, were in any way illegal or there was even any irregularity. He availed his remedy of appeal under the rules governing his conditions of service. It could not be said that in the circumstances industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become industrial dispute and appropriate Government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming as industrial dispute. Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power under Section 10 of the Act and there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. The purpose of reference is to keep industrial peace in an establishment. The present reference is destructive to the industrial peace and defeats the very object and purposes of the Act. Bank was justified in thus moving the High Court seeking an order to quash the reference in question".
11. The Division Bench of this Court after noticing judgments of the Supreme Court in Shalimar Works Limited's case, supra, Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. Union of India, Nedungadi Bank Limited's case, supra, has ruled that since the reference itself was stale being belated it was not entertainable by the Labour Court and the same ought to have been rejected on the said ground alone.
12. The respondent has cited various case-laws in support of his case. The judgments in Ajaib Singh's case, supra and Nedungadi Bank Limited's case, supra, were pressed into service in support of the contention of the workman. We have to say that after noticing these two judgments a Division Bench of this Court in M.K. Ron's case, supra, has categorically ruled that belated reference is not entertainable. Hence, these two judgments do not come to the rescue of the workman.
13. The other judgment cited by the respondent is Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited's case, supra and that was a case in which the Court noticed the ground of delay and laches. The Court factually ruled in that case that there was no reasonable and justifiable ground with regard to delay. In Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways, the Supreme Court noticed as to whether the relief can be denied on the ground of delay and it ruied the discretion was of the Industrial Tribunal. These two judgments also are not applicable to the facts of this case.
14. In the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit, the Supreme Court noticed the two judgments in Shalimar Works Limited's case, supra and Western India Watch Company Limited v. Western India Watch Company Workers' Union and Ors. and the judgment in Nedungadi Bank Limited's case, supra. After noticing the Supreme Court ruled in para 15 as under:
"There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case when the Government have chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while moulding its reliefs. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the Government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination".
In the present case it is seen that the workman had tried to explain away cause of delay in the claim statement. He says that his services had been terminated on 11-3-1985. His appeal was rejected on 17-1-1986 and he explains the delay by contending of a pending revision and the disposal of the same on 7-2-1994. The Labour Court on evidence has found that the workman has not produced a copy of the revision petition in support of his explanation of the delay. In the light of these facts it is clear to us that there is no live dispute as in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit's case, supra. Therefore, the judgment is totally inapplicable to the facts of this case. Hence, almost all the judgments cited by the workman are not helpful to him. Moreover, in the case on hand there is enormous delay of eight years which has been accepted by the Labour Court as well. No blood can be pumped into either by the Labour Court or by this Court for a stale dead reference.
15. In the circumstance we are of the view that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in failing to notice the enormous delay in the light of the binding judgments of the Apex Court.
16. We further find on merits, that the Labour Court has accepted the version of the workman. It is seen that the workman has been reinstated during the pendency of the proceedings. In the circumstances notwithstanding our order in favour of the Corporation we direct the Corporation not to remove the respondent-workman from his services on account of their accepting him in employment during the pendency of the proceedings as a special case, but he will not be entitled to any back wages or continuity of service.
17. Writ appeal is allowed in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs.