Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Jai Singh S/O Shri vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel, Sandeep Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2190 of 2020 & CONNECTED MATTERS
Between:-
1. CWP No. 2190 of 2020
SHRI JAI SINGH S/O SHRI
SHANKRU RAM, R/O
VILLAGE SARWA, PO
TAPROLI, TEHSIL
RAJGARH, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR (H.P)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, (HPPWD) TO
THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
2
DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT AND
LABOUR HIMACHAL
PRADESH GOVERNMENT,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
.
CART ROAD, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002
3. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
HPPWD, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NIGAM. VIHAR, SHIMLA
-171002.
4. THE SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER, HPPWD
CIRCLE, SIRMOUR AT
NAHAN, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR (H.P).
5. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HPPWD
DIVISION, RAJGARH,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P).
6. THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, HPPWD SUB-
DIVISION HABBAN, TEHSIL
RAJGARH, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR (H.P).
.....RESPONDENTS
2. CWP No.3798 of 2014
1. BABLI DEVI W/O SHRI BIR
SINGH RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE RANGAR POST
OFFICE SEOH TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT DISTT. MANDI
H.P. AGED 39 YEARS
2 SANJAY KUMAR SON OF
SHRI CHAND LAL
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KHAIR PARDANA POST
OFFICE SIDHPUR TEHSIL
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
3
SARKAGHAT DISTT. MANDI
H.P. AGED 33 YEARS
3. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF
SHRI DUNI CHAND
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
.
LAKHREHAR POST OFFICE
KUJABAHAL TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT DISTT. MANDI
H.P. AGED 35 YEARS
4. MAHENDER SINGH SON OF
OF SHRI HARI SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
LANGEHAR AT PRESENT
RESIDING IN VILLAGE
HAWANI BHADYAR POST
OFFICE MORLA (BRANG)
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT DISTT.
MANDI H.P. AGED 37 YEARS
5.
PRADEEP KUMAR SON OF
SHRI CHHITRU RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
THANA POST OFFICE
KANGO KA GAHRA TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT DISTT. MANDI
H.P. AGED 32 YEARS
6. BRAHAM DASS, SON OF
SHRI BIRBAL RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE &
POST OFFICE SAKLANA
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT DISTT.
MANDI H.P. AGED 36 YEARS
7. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF
SHRI ACHHARU RAM
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
HUKKAL POST OFFICE
LONGANI TEHSIL
SARKAGHAT DISTT. MANDI
H.P. AGED 37 YEARS
8. JAGDISH CHAND SON OF
SHRI ROSHAN LAL
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KOT POST OFFICE TIHRA
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
4
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT DISTT.
MANDI H.P. AGED 49 YEARS
.....PETITIONERS
.
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY (LABOUR &
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA H.P.
2. THE LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
& EMPLOYMENT NEW
HIMRUS BUILDING, NEAR
HOTEL HIMLAND SHIMLA.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HPPWD (B&R) DIVISION
DHARAMPUR, DISTT.
MANDI H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
3. CWP No.1855 of 2017
OM PRAKASH S/O SH.
DHARAM DASS, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE & POST
OFFICE PANDOA, TEHSIL
SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
5
THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL),
VIDYUT BHAWAN, SHIMLA-
4.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
.
H.P.S.E.B. LIMITED SUNNI,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT,
SHIMLA-171001, H.P
.....RESPONDENTS
4.
CWP No.2373 of 2017
RANGI RAM S/O SH. LEKH
RAM R/O VILLAGE
CHALOUNI BHATER, P.O
ZAGATKHANA, TEHSIL
SHRI NAINA DEVI JI, DISTT.
BILASPUR, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF H.P THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY (LABOUR
AND EMPLOYMENT) TO
THE GOVT. OF H.P.
SHIMLA-2.
2. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, H.P.
HIMROUS BUILDING, NEAR
HIMLAND SHIMLA-1.
3. THE ADDITIONAL
SUPERINTENDING
ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
6
DIVISION, HPSEBL
BILASPUR, DISTRICT
BILASPUR, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
.
5. CWP No.557 of 2018
SH. NIRMAL SINGH, S/O
SH. SWARN SINGH, R/O
VILLAGE & PO PANJAWAR,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE LD. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, FLOOD
PROTECTION DIVISION,
GAGRET, DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
CUM-CONCILIATION-
OFFICER, UNA, DISTRICT,
UNA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
6. CWP No.558 of 2018
SH. HARPAL SINGH, S/O
SH. PARAS RAM, R/O
VILLAGE LAMLEHRI,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
7
TEHSIL & DISTRICT UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
.....PETITIONER
.
AND
1. THE LD. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, FLOOD
PROTECTION DIVISION,
GAGRET, DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
CUM-CONCILIATION-
OFFICER, UNA, DISTRICT,
UNA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
7. CWP No.559 of 2018
SH. SARWAN KUMAR, S/O
LATE SH. BELDEV RAJ, R/O
VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE, AMBOTA, TEHSIL
GHANARI, DISTRICT UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE LD. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
8
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, FLOOD
PROTECTION DIVISION,
.
GAGRET, DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
CUM-CONCILIATION-
OFFICER, UNA, DISTRICT,
UNA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
8.
VILLAGE
r to
CWP No.561 of 2018
SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, S/O
SH. WATTAN CHAND, R/O
AND POST
OFFICE ISPUR, AMBOTA,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE LD. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, FLOOD
PROTECTION DIVISION,
GAGRET, DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
CUM-CONCILIATION-
OFFICER, UNA, DISTRICT,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
9
UNA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
9. CWP No.811 of 2018
.
SH. BESAR DUTT, S/O SH.
NARAYAN SINGH, R/O
VILLAGE KANDA, POST
OFFICE BALINDI, TEHSIL
KARSOG, DISTRICT
MANDI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE LD. DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, FLOOD
PROTECTION DIVISION,
GAGRET, DISTRICT, UNA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
CUM-CONCILIATION-
OFFICER, UNA, DISTRICT,
UNA, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
10. CWP No.1820 of 2018
BHAJAN SINGH S/O NEK
RAM R/O VILLAGE
CHHATER P.O BRANG,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
10
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI H.P.
.....PETITIONER
.
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
THE SECRETARY
(LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD, NEAR
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1, (H.P.)
3. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, H.P.P.W.D.
(B&R) DIVISION
DHAMAMPUR DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
11. CWP No.1284 of 2019
MOHINDER KUMAR, AGED
48 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI
CHHANGA RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DUGH, POST OFFICE
KOHLARI, DISTRICT
CHAMBA (H.P.).
.....PETITIONER
AND
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
11
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY (I&PH) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
.
SHIMLA-171002 (H.P.).
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, I&PH
DALHOUSIE, DISTRICT
CHAMBA (H.P.).
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER, NEW
HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
SHIMLA-171001 (H.P.).
r .....RESPONDENTS
12. CWP No.1381 of 2019
RAMESH CHAND SON OF
SHRI PURAN CHAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
BAIR, P.O. TILLI, TEHSIL
SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LTD., VIDYUT
BHAWAN, KUMAR HOUSE,
SHIMLA-4, THROUGH ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(PERS.)
2. SENIOR EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
DIVISION, HPSEB LTD.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
12
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
3. LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
.
.....RESPONDENTS
13. CWP No.1383 of 2019
VINOD KUMAR SON OF
SHRI PARMANAND,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
CHANWARI, P.O. TILLI,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. HIMACHAL PRADESH
STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LTD., VIDYUT
BHAWAN, KUMAR HOUSE,
SHIMLA-4, THROUGH ITS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(PERS.)
2. SENIOR EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
DIVISION, HPSEB LTD.
MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
3. LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
.....RESPONDENTS
14. CWP No.1448 of 2019
SHRI CHHERING ANGDUI,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
13
S/O SH. CHHERING PA,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE KAZA, DISTRICT
LAHAUL AND SPITI, H.P.
.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (HPPWD) TO
THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
2. THE LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT AND
LABOUR, HIMACHAL
PRADESH GOVERNMENT,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CART ROAD, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-
171002.
3. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HPPWD
DIVISION, B&R DIVISION
KAZA, DISTT. LAHAUL
AND SPITI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
4. THE ASSISTANT
ENGINEER, HPPWD
DIVISION, B&R DIVISION
KAZA, DISTT. LAHAUL
AND SPITI, HIMACHAL
PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENTS
15. CWP No.1748 of 2019
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
14
SH. SURESH KUMAR S/O
SH CHET RAM, VILLAGE
KHANEWARI, P.O. JAIS,
TEHSIL THEOG, DISTT,
.
SHIMLA, H.P
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPLE SECRETARY
(HP PWD) TO THE GOVT.
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HP PWD
DIVISION THEOG, DISTT,
SHIMLA, H.P.
3. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR-
CUM CONCILIATION
OFFICER, SHIMLA
CIRCLE-I, DISTT. SHIMLA,
H.P.
4. THE JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
16. CWP No.2111 of 2019
MUNSHI RAM SON OF SH.
MOHI RAM, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BHARAINA, PO
BAKRAS, TEHSIL SHILLAI,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (HP).
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
15
.....PETITIONER
AND
.
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (LABOUR &
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HP,
SHIMLA-2.
2. JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING
CIRCULAR ROAD,
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1.
3.
DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, FOREST
DIVISION RENUKA JI,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (HP).
.....RESPONDENTS
17. CWP No.2112 of 2019
BARU RAM SON OF SH.
JALAM SINGH, RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE BAMBRAD, ,
PO BAKRAS, TEHSIL
SHILLAI, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR (HP).
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY (LABOUR &
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
16
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HP,
SHIMLA-2.
2. JOINT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
.
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING
CIRCULAR ROAD,
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1.
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, FOREST
DIVISION RENUKA JI,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (HP).
.....RESPONDENTS
18. CWP No.2143 of 2019
CHAMAN LAL S/O SH VED
RAM,
rR/O VILLAGE
PAKWANA, P.O. KHUHAN,
TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
THE SECRETARY
(LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1, (H.P.
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, LAHAUL
FOREST DIVISION, AT
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
17
KEYLONG, DISTRICT
LAHAUL & SPITI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
.
19. CWP No.2144 of 2019
CHUNNI LAL S/O SH VED
RAM, R/O VILLAGE
PAKWANA, P.O. KHUHAN,
TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
1.
AND r to
STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
THE SECRETARY
(LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1, (H.P.
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, LAHAUL
FOREST DIVISION, AT
KEYLONG, DISTRICT
LAHAUL & SPITI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
20. CWP No.2145 of 2019
SH. LUDAR MANI S/O DILE
RAM, R/O VILLAGE
KHANAR, P.O. DHAWHAR,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
18
TEHSIL BALICHOWKI,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
.
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
THE SECRETARY (LABOUR
AND EMPLOYMENT) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
HIMLAND, SHIMLA-1, (H.P.).
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, LAHAUL
FOREST DIVISION, AT
KEYLONG, DISTRICT
LAHAUL & SPITI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
21. CWP No.2818 of 2019
I) SMT BIMLA DEVI W/O
SHRI HANS RAJ R/O
VILLAGE CHANJYAR,
POST OFFICE DHAWALI,
TEHSIL SARKAGHAT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, THROUGH
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
19
SECRETARY (LABOUR &
EMPLOYMENT) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH, H.P.
SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2.
.
2 THE DEPUTY LABOUR
COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
SHIMLA-2.
3. THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HPPWD (B&R)
DIVISION DHARAMPUR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
22. CWP No.3234 of 2019
SH. PAWAN KUMAR SON
OF SH. INDER DUTT SON
OF SH. ATMA RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
DEED-GHALUT, POST
OFFICE NARAG. SUB-
TEHSIL NARAG. DISTRICT
SIRMOUR -173024 (HP)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(PWD), H.P. SECRETARIAT
CHHOTA SHIMLA 171002
(H.P.).
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF,
PWD (SOUTH) TO THE
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
20
GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
OPPOSITE POLICE HEAD
QUARTER, NIGAM VIBAR,
SHIMLA-171002 (H.P.)
.
3 THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD),
RAJGARH DIVISION.
TEHSIL RAJGARH,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.)
4. THE LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR (SOUTH) H.P.
PWD FOR DISTRICT
SIRMOUR, TO THE GOVT.
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
WINTER FIELD, NEAR OLD
BUS STAND SHIMLA
-171003 (H.P.).
5. SH. SUDESH KUMAR SON
OF SH. INDERDUTT SON
OF SH. ATMA RAM,
6. SMT. RAJ BALAWIDOW OF
SH. INDERDUTT SON OF
SH. ATMA RAM,
7. SH. SUKH DEV SON OF
ATMA RAM SON OF
DHANDA,
8. SMT. BHAGWANTI
DAUGHTER OF SH. ATMA
RAM SON OF SH.
DHANDA,
9. SMT. LAJWANTI
DAUGHTER OF SH. ATMA
RAM SON OF SH.
DHANDA,
10. SMT. DAYAWANTI
DAUGHTER OF SH. ATMA
RAM SON OF SH.
DHANDA,
11. SH.RAVI DUTT SON OF
SPAT. HEMAWATI
DAUGHTER OF ATMA
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
21
RAM,
12. SH. NARENDER DUTT SON
OF SMT. HEMAWATI
DAUGHTER OF SH. ATMA
RAM,
.
13. SMT. KAMLESH DEVI
DAUGHTER OF SMT.
HEMAWATI DAUGHTER OF
SH. ATMA RAM,
14. SMT. SUSHMA DEVI
DAUGHTER OF SH.
HEMAWATI DAUGHTER OF
ATMA RAM,
15. SMT.KUSUM DEVI
DAUGHTER OF SINT.
HEMAWATI DAUGHTER OF
ATMA RAM,
ALL RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE DEED-GHALUT,
POST OFFICE NARAG.
SUB-TEHSIL NARAG.
DISTRICT SIRMOUR (H.P.).
.....RESPONDENTS
23. CWP No.3242 of 2019
KHUB SINGH S/O SHRI
KHIMI RAM R/O VILLAGE
THATTA DEORI POST
OFFICE DEORI TEHSIL
SADAR DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD LIMITED KUMAR
HOUSE, SHIMLA
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
22
THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY.
2. SENIOR EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, HPSEB LTD.,
ELECTRICAL DIVISION,
.
GOHAR, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
3. LABOR COMMISSIONER,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
NEW HIMRUS BUILDING,
CIRCULAR ROAD,
SHIMLA-1.
.....RESPONDENTS
ROSHAN LAL SON OF
SHRI KUNDAN
24. CWP No.4835 of 2020
LAL,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
TALAH, P.O. BHARARA,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY (1&PH)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-171 002
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, I&PH,
U.S. CLUB, SHIMLA,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
I&PH DIVISION SUNNI,
TEHSIL SUNNI, HUM
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
23
4. SUB-DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, I&PH SUB
DIVISION SUNNI, TEHSIL
SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
.
.....RESPONDENTS
25. CWP No.5361 of 2020
MEHAR SINGH SON OF
LATE SHRI ANANT RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
TALAH, P.O. BHARARA,
TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT
SHIMLA, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
ITS SECRETARY (1&PH)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-171 002
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, I&PH,
U.S. CLUB, SHIMLA,
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
I&PH DIVISION SUNNI,
TEHSIL SUNNI, HUM
DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
4. SUB-DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, I&PH SUB
DIVISION SUNNI, TEHSIL
SUNNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
.....RESPONDENTS
(M/S. M.A. SHAFI, SHUBHAM SOOD,
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS
24
AJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN, SURENDER
SHARMA, Y.P.S. DHAULTA, C.N.
SINGH, ASHOK KUMAR, ADARSH K.
VASHISTA, R.L. CHAUDHARY, ANIL
BANSAL, PRAKASH SHARMA,
.
DALEEP CHAND, PRINCE CHAUHAN,
AND KARAN SINGH PARMAR,
ADVOCATES, FOR THE
PETITIONERS(S) IN THE RESPECTIVE
PETITIONS
MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH M/S RITTA GOSWAMI,
VIKAS RATHORE AND NAND LAL
THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL, FOR THE RESPONDENTS-
STATE. r
MR. BALRAM SHARMA, ASGI, MR.
VIKRANT THAKUR AND MR. ANIL
KUMAR GOD, ADVOCATES, FOR THE
RESPONDENT(S) IN THE RESPECTIVE
PETITIONS)
Reserved on: 04.03.2022
Pronounced on: 30.03.2022
_____________________________________________________
These petitions coming on for pronouncement of the
order this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed
the following:
ORDER
The Division Bench of this Court taking note of the divergent views expressed by different Division Benches, some of which were at variance with Full Bench decision of this Court in ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 25 CWP No. 1486 of 2007, titled Liaq Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th January, 2011, has made the reference to the Larger Bench on the following question:-
.
"Since there is inconsistency in various decisions of this Court with regard to the power and authority of the appropriate Government in making/refusing a reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act on the grounds of delayed- stale claims/faded, eclipsed, dead disputes etc. raised by workmen, therefore, the question of law requires authoritative pronouncement by a Larger bench."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General and other learned Advocates, who appeared as intervener to assist the Court.
3. The question that arose before the Division Bench was whether on raising of an industrial dispute, the appropriate Government has to merely act as a post office and is compelled by law to send the reference for adjudication to the Labour Court or whether it can examine the facts of the case at that stage itself and refuse to refer on grounds of delay, stale claims, non-existence of the alive dispute. This very question came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Liaq Ram (supra). The ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 26 Division Bench in the reference has extensively taken note of the three separate opinions given by the Hon'ble Judges, comprising the Full Bench.
.
4. Having gone through the judgment in Liaq Ram (supra), we find that the Full Bench in that case after following ratio of various Supreme Court judgments on the subject ultimately held by majority that the Government was competent to form an opinion whether a dispute exists or not and in case there is great delay and there is no explanation of the delay, it can refuse to make a reference on the ground that the claim is stale and therefore, the industrial dispute no longer exists. An industrial dispute can fade away and cease to exist because of long delay where the workman has taken no steps to keep the dispute alive. The minority view was expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, the Presiding Judge of the Full Bench in the terms that the appropriate government while exercising its powers under Section 10(1) of the Act is neither expected nor called upon to decide as to whether claim is stale or delayed. The existence or the apprehension of disputes is, therefore, only aspect which is required to be investigated or inquired into by the appropriate Government for forming the opinion about existence or apprehension of the dispute. Once the Government has made a ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 27 reference of the industrial dispute, the question of delay in making reference cannot be inquired into by the Industrial Courts as it does not affect validity of the reference. Inordinate delay in making .
reference per-se is not an adequate ground for declining relief.
There is no limitation prescribed under the Act. Therefore, as the words " at any time" used in Section 10(1) of the Act indicate, there is no bar of limitation. The dispute, even though very old, can yet be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of even 5 or 10 or 15 years or for more years, might not be fatal for making reference regarding a claim when industrial dispute is found to be existing or apprehended.
5. The aforementioned view was not concurred to by other two members of the Full Bench. The author of the leading opinion was Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, as his Lordship then was.
After examining ratio of several judgments of the Supreme Court, his Lordship held as under:-
"After carefully going through the various judgments of the Apex Court, it is apparent that in some cases the Apex Court itself has held that since ther 24 e is delay in seeking the reference the dispute had faded away of had got eclipsed due to lapse of time. Even in those cases where the Apex Court held that the reference was proper ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 28 and the dispute still existed, it went on to hold that in cases where lapse of time had caused fading or eclipsing of the dispute and nobody had kept the dispute alive, it would be reasonable to conclude .
that the dispute ceases to exist. The Government is authorized to form the opinion whether a dispute exists or not. This clearly shows that the Government is not powerless and in case there is great delay and there is no explanation for the delay then the Government can refuse to make a reference on the ground that the claim is stale and therefore the industrial dispute no longer exists. An industrial dispute can fade away and cease to exist because of long delay where the workman has taken no steps to keep the dispute alive. However, if the workman or the Union has kept the dispute alive even if no action has been initiated it will not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. Whether, a dispute exists or not, or has faded or got eclipsed is a question of fact which has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. I would answer the question in the aforesaid terms."
6. The third Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, also took a view that Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with reference of such disputes to it, which does not prescribe any time limit, for making a reference or any "industrial dispute" but the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 29 appropriate Government has to form an "opinion" whether any "industrial dispute" exists or apprehended. It may "at any time" by order in writing refer to it for its determination as provided in that .
Section. The formation of such opinion by the Government is though administrative action, but it has to be subjective. The question whether or not "industrial dispute" existed on the date of reference is a question of fact to be determined by the Tribunal on the material placed before it. Holding thus the following observations were made in para 6 of the order by the learned third Judge:-
r 6. Therefore, the appropriate Government has to be subjectively satisfied while forming an "opinion" such power has to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner, whether a dispute exists or not. In case the answer is in positive, it has to refer the matter to Court/ Tribunal irrespective of time lapse, though, it would depend on the factual background of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be laid. Hence, I fully support the view taken by Brother Justice Deepak Gupta."
7. In our considered view, once the Division Bench making reference itself found that the majority judgment in Liaq Ram (supra) has taken the view that it is open for the appropriate Government to refuse to make a reference in case the claim of workman was stale ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 30 or if the industrial dispute had faded away because of long delay, contrary view taken by some of the later Division Benches cannot be said to be laying down good law. These judgments held that .
Government while deciding the question cannot itself take up the role of adjudicating authority and as to whether or refuse to make reference on the ground of delay and laches. Judgments in Megh Nath vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.6687 of 2014, decided on 24.09.2014, Pratap Chand vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, CWP No.9467 of 2014, decided on 30.12.2014 and Bhupinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.610 of 2019, decided on 4.9.2019, were rendered without noticing the binding decision of the Full Bench in Liaq Ram (supra). There was no justification not to follow the majority view of the Full Bench in Liaq Ram (supra), as all these judgments, rendered under ignorance of Liaq Ram (supra) therefore, must be held to be per incuriam.
8. There is the other line of judgments by different Division Benches such as in Karvir vs. State of H.P. & others, CWP No.1091 of 2019, decided on 24.12.2019 and Bego Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.1912/2016, decided on 26.10.2016, after relying on various Supreme Court judgments, including ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 31 Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, (2014) 10 SCC 301 and Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, (2015) 15 SCC 1. These .
judgments, in our view, rightly held that if there is no explanation for the huge delay in raising the dispute, the appropriate Government would be justified in refusing to refer the dispute on the ground that the dispute has faded away with the efflux of time and there is no live dispute to be referred.
9. In Raghubir Singh (supra), the Labour Court, to which the dispute was referred for adjudication, held that reference of the industrial dispute was time barred. The writ petition filed by the workman against award of the Labour Court was dismissed by Single Bench of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal also met the same fate. This is how the matter reached the Supreme Court at the instance of the workman. The Supreme Court took the view that the Labour Court erroneously held the industrial dispute to be barred by limitation. Section 10(1) of the Act empowers the appropriate government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication 'at any time', if it is of the opinion that such an industrial dispute between the workman & the employer exists or is apprehended. Obviously, the Supreme Court in that case took such view because there is ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 32 indeed no limitation prescribed under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Nevertheless, enormous delay would be a significant factor in forming the opinion whether or not the dispute is still alive or has .
ceased to exist.
10. The Judgment of Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh (supra) was followed in later judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar (supra). In this judgment connotation "at any time" in Section 10(1) of the Act was again examined in para 28 of the judgment and explained as under:-
r "28. The aforesaid case law depicts the
following:
28.1. The law of limitation does not apply to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
28.2. The words "at any time" used in Section 10 would support that there is no period of limitation in making an order of reference.
28.3. At the same time, the appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so, the reference can be refused.
28.4. Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale/non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 33 circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference."
.
11. After holding that divergent views expressed by some of the Division Benches would have no effect on the precedential value and binding force of Full Bench decision in Liaq Ram (supra), it would be profitable to make survey of the case law so far available on the subject.
12. Earliest judgment on the subject is by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. K.P. Krishnan and others, AIR 1960 SC 1223, which held that Section 10(1) of the Act confers wide and even absolute discretion, on the Government either to refer or to refuse to refer, an industrial dispute. An obligation is imposed on the Government to refer the dispute unless of course it is satisfied that the notice is frivolous, or vexatious or that considerations of expediency required that a reference should not be made. However, while making an order refusing to make reference, the appropriate Government is not expected to consider factors which are extraneous or irrelevant or not germane. Even in dealing with the question as to whether or not it would be expedient to make a reference, the Government must not act in punitive spirit but must ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 34 consider the question fairly and reasonably and take into account only relevant facts and circumstances. This judgment was followed by the Supreme Court later in Madya Pradesh Irrigation .
Karamchari Sangh vs. State of M.P. and another, (1985) 2 SCC 102 and V. Veeranajan and others vs. Government of Tamil Nady, (1987) 1 SCC 479.
13. In Bombay Union of Journalists and others vs. the State of Bombay and another, AIR 1964 SC 1617, the Supreme Court held that while considering the question as to whether a reference should be made under Section 12(5), the appropriate Government has to act under Section 10(1) of the Act which confers discretion on the Government either to refer the dispute or not to refer it. Under Section 12(5) of the Act, the appropriate Government is under an obligation to record reasons for not making the reference. However, when the matter involves a question of law and disputed question of fact, the appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the same as it is a subject matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie merit of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised. It was further ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 35 held that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference.
14. In Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and .
another vs. State of Bihar and others, (1989) 3 SCC 271, the Supreme Court held that though while considering the question of making a reference under Section 10(1), the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended", but it is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. While exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function. It therefore cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. The question whether the persons raising the dispute were workmen or not, cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Obviously, the question of delay was not under consideration in that case before the Supreme Court.
15. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others vs. Union of India and others, (1993) supp (4) SCC 67, the Supreme Court held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself as lapse of time results in ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 36 losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available.
.
16. In Workmen vs. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd. and others, (1995) Supp (2) SCC 733, the Supreme Court held that it is not obligatory on the part of the appropriate Government to make a reference of a dispute in each and every case where the reference is sought as the Government has to weigh the facts keeping in mind the objective of industrial peace and smooth industrial relations between the parties and where the reasons given by the Government for not making the reference, are found to be relevant, the Courts cannot interfere.
17. In Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabi Ibrahim, (1997) 6 SCC 71, the Supreme Court held that wherever a power is vested in a statutory authority without prescribing any time limit, such power should be exercised within a reasonable time. In N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court held that a legal remedy cannot be kept alive for unreasonable period even if the statute does not provide for any limitation.
18. In Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 37cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another, (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Supreme Court held that even in cases of prolonged delay, relief can be moulded by declining whole or part of the back .
wages. It further held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act. In cases where the delay is shown to be existing, the Industrial Court can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment or in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages. The Supreme Court although upheld the award of the Labour Court for re-instatement and continuity of service, but in view of 7 years' long delay in seeking reference of the dispute, restricted the back wages from the date of issuance of notice of demand till the date of award by the Labour Court to the extent of 60% and awarded full back wages only after succeeding period.
19. Under challenge before the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors, (2000) 2 SCC 455 was judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, which had allowed the appeal filed by the workmen and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 38 filed by the Bank was allowed by quashing the reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the "Act"). The Supreme Court held that "even though .
there is no statutory limitation period for making reference of industrial dispute, but such powers should be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner and not in a mechanical fashion. When a dispute becomes stale would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The following observations of the Supreme Court in para-6 are worth quoting:-
r "6. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 39 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 was 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."
20. In Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, (2001) SCC 222, the judgment of High Court of Allahabad was challenged before the Supreme Court, which quashed the reference order passed by the appropriate Government on the ground of delay of 15 years. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for making reference of industrial dispute is co-
extensive with the existence of dispute. The opinion as to the existence of the dispute has to be formed by the Government alone and none else. After referring to Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which is akin to Section 10 of the Act, the Supreme Court in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 40"8. The above section is almost in tune with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the difference between these two provisions does not relate to the points at issue in this case.
.
Though no time limit is fixed for making the reference for a dispute for adjudication, could any State Government revive a dispute which had submerged in stupor by long lapse of time and re- kindled by making a reference of it to adjudication? The words at any time as used in the section are prima facie indicator to a period without boundary. But such an interpretation making the power unending would be pedantic. There is inherent evidence in this sub-section itself to indicate that the time has some circumscription. The words where the Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended have to be read in conjunction with the words at any time. They are, in a way, complimentary to each other.
The Governments power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be done only so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by the enduring expression at any time terminates with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It, therefore, means that if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of years which elapsed since the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 41 commencement of the dispute to determine whether the delay would have extinguished the power of the Government to make the reference.
9. Hence the real test is, was the industrial .
dispute in existence on the date of reference for adjudication? If the answer is in the negative then the Governments power to make a reference would have extinguished. On the other hand, if the answer is in positive terms the Government could have exercised the power whatever be the range of the period which lapsed since the inception of the dispute. That apart, a decision of the government in this regard cannot be listed on the possibility of what another party would think whether any dispute existed or not. The section indicates that if in the opinion of the Government the dispute existed then the Government could make the reference. The only authority which can form such an opinion is the government. If the government decides to make the reference there is a presumption that in the opinion of the government there existed such a dispute.
21. In S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 27, the argument of the respondents before the Supreme Court was that on account of mere delay in raising the dispute by the appellants workmen, the High Court was not justified in denying the relief to them. Although, the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 42 Supreme Court upheld that argument in the facts of the case, yet relying on its earlier decision in Shalimar Works Ltd. vs. Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217, the Supreme Court held that merely because .
the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide for limitation for raising the dispute, it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at any time and without regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal; even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale.
22. In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91, the Supreme Court held that although the Court cannot import a period of limitation when the statue does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh (supra) but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.
23. In U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. vs. Babu Ram, ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 43 (2006) 5 SCC 433, the Supreme Court held that so far as delay in seeking reference is concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down for determination of the said question, it would .
depend on facts of each individual case. In Asstt. Engineer, CAD, Kota vs. Dhan Kunwar, (2006) 5 SCC 481, also the Supreme Court held that it may be noted that so far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on the facts of each individual case.
24. The Supreme Court in Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. And another vs. General Employees' Association and others, (2007) 5 SCC 273, held that the High Court cannot straightway direct the appropriate government to refer the dispute. It is for the appropriate Government to apply its mind to relevant factors and satisfy itself as to the existence of a dispute before deciding to refer the dispute.
25. The Supreme Court in Krisihi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Manglor vs. Pahal Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 193 was dealing with a case where industrial dispute had been raised 18 years after the date of retrenchment. The Labour Court declared the termination of the services by the management as illegal and directed re-
instatement of the workman with continuity of service and back ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 44 wages. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court is under an obligation to consider as to whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the .
industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. The Supreme Court held that it is well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". It was further held that the Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously. A relief of re-
instatement with all back wages is not to be given without considering the relevant factors therefor, only because it would be lawful to do so. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
26. In State of Karnataka and another vs. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746, the Supreme Court held that delay of 14 years in seeking reference and challenging the order of termination was fatal because the person supervising could be expected to prove after 14 years that the respondent did not work or that he did not work for 240 days in a year or that he voluntarily left the work. Since the reference was stale, it ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. Holding thus, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the award of the Labour ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 45 Court which rejected the reference.
27. In Rahaman Industries Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 12 SCC 420, challenge before .
the Supreme Court was made to the order of the High Court giving peremptory direction to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute raised by the workmen for adjudication. It was argued that the order of the High Court has virtually taken away the discretion on the part of the Government to look into the issue as to whether there is a referable dispute at all. Upholding the argument, the Supreme Court held that it is not as if the Government has to act as a post office by referring each and every petition received by them. The Government is well within its jurisdiction to see whether there exists a dispute worth referring for adjudication. In Para-3 the Supreme Court held as under:-
"3. We find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel. In the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is not as if the Government has to act as a post office by referring each and every petition received by them. The Government is well within its jurisdiction to see whether there exists a dispute worth referring for adjudication. No doubt, the Government is not entitled to enter a finding on the merits of the case and decline reference. The ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 46 Government has to satisfy itself, after applying its mind to the relevant factors and satisfy itself to the existence of dispute before taking a decision to refer the same for adjudication. Only in case, on .
judicial scrutiny, the court finds that the refusal of the Government to make a reference of the dispute is unjustified on irrelevant factors, the court may issue a direction to the Government to make a reference".
28. Following principles of law can, therefore be culled out from series of the precedents discussed above, as to the effect of delay in demanding /making reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Act:-
i) That the function of the appropriate Government while dealing with question of making reference of industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act, is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function.
ii) That the Government before taking a decision on the question of making reference of the industrial dispute has to form a definite opinion whether or not such dispute exits or is apprehended.
iii) That whether or not the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended in the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Act can be decided by the appropriate Government alone and not by any other ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 47 authority including by this Court.
iv) That the appropriate Government in discharging the administrative function of taking a decision to make or refuse to .
make, reference of the industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act, has to apply its mind on relevant considerations and has not to act mechanically as a post office.
v) That while forming an opinion as to whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the appropriate Government is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute itself on merits.
vi) That the delay by itself does not denude the appropriate Government of its power to examine advisability of making reference of the industrial dispute but the delay would certainly be relevant for deciding the basic question whether or not the industrial dispute "exists" which also includes the decision to find out whether on account of delay the dispute has ceased to exist or has ceased to be alive or has become stale or has faded away.
vii) That whether or not a dispute is alive or has become stale or non-existent, would always depend on the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down for the same.
viii) That even if Section 10(1) of the Act empowers the ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 48 appropriate Government to form an opinion "at any time" on the question whether any "industrial dispute" "exists or is apprehended", and there is no time limit prescribed for taking such a decision, yet .
such power has to be exercised by the appropriate Government within a reasonable time.
ix) That the period for making reference of industrial dispute is co-extensive with the existence of dispute because the factum of the "existence" or "apprehension of the dispute" is conditioned by the effect of the delay on the liveliness of the dispute
x) That the appropriate Government in arriving at the decision to make a reference of industrial dispute or otherwise, in the context of delay, may examine whether the workman or the Union has been agitating the matter before the appropriate fora so as to keep the dispute alive, which however, does not necessarily mean that in a case where such action has not been initiated, the dispute has ceased to exist.
xi) That the appropriate Government can, as per Section 10(1) of the Act, take a decision on the question of making reference "at any time", thus implying that there is no limitation in taking such decision and the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to such proceedings.
::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 49xii) That the appropriate Government while taking a decision on the question of making reference, need not provide an elaborate opportunity of hearing to the workman but it is under an .
obligation to consider his explanation for delay in making the demand.
xiii) That in cases where the appropriate Government while examining the question of making a reference of industrial dispute arrives at a decision that the question that on account of delay the dispute has ceased to exist or alive, would require elaborate examination of the evidence, it may while making a reference of the industrial dispute, additionally formulate question on this aspect to be decided as preliminary issue while simultaneously also making a reference on the industrial dispute to be decided as secondary issue.
xiv) That even in a case where reference has been made to the Industrial Court after prolonged delay, such Court would be entitled to mould the relief by declining whole or part of the back wages.
xv) That even when a reference is made by appropriate Government in a case after huge and enormous unexplained delay, ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS 50 the industrial Court would be entitled to return the reference since such Court judiciously exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and is under obligation to consider .
whether in such like situation any relief at all could be granted to the workman.
29. In view of the above, while reiterating the law earlier laid down by the Full Bench in Liaq Ram (supra), the reference is answered accordingly, with further and additional clarifications on the issue involved. Let the matters now be listed before the appropriate Bench for regular hearing.
( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice ( Ajay Mohan Goel ) Judge ( Sandeep Sharma ) March 30, 2022 Judge (vt) ::: Downloaded on - 30/03/2022 20:17:22 :::CIS