Karnataka High Court
Steel Authority Of India vs The Secretary Government Of India on 16 April, 2008
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Dated this the 16% day of April, 2008 Se THE HOW'ELE Ms, JUSTICE 3.R. RANNURMATH TRE BOW'BLE Ms. JUSTICE AN. VENVOCPALA GOWDA Steel Authority of India V.LS. Plant, : - Bhadravatiii 57 T 301 a Shimoga District, Represented by its -- Manager (Legad, . Sei, H. N. Venkatesh. | | _. APPR . (By Si aN. *Rgurthyy Associates, Adv.) New Delhi 110 001. 2. Sri Hanuma Naik, Major, C/o Sri M. Selvarajan, President, VISL Mines Employees Union Gouse Sab line, Old Town, Bhadravathi-577 301. 3. Smt. Shivamma, a . Major, 7 C/o Sri M. Selvarajan, Preaident, VISL Mines -- Employees Union, Gouse Sab Line, Old Town, Bhadravathi 577 303. _ 7 : 7 oe ... RESPONDENT/8. (y Se, Jegadeeshachat, A Ady. for R- 1 ars) Thie Writ Appeat is 6 filet vnder Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying tm set aside the order passed in the Writ Petition Na. 18518) 2007. - "This appea! being heard and reserved is coming on for pronouncement | of judgment this day, BANNURMATH J., delivered the following:- JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition filed "by the Management, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case on hand has a long history. To be in brief, the appellant/ Management used to award contract for breaking, sorting, loading and unloading of quartz every year by calling for the tenders. The contractors used to engage contract workers of their choice. In the year 1983, since there was an ga huge accumulation of quartz at VISi,. it decided to short clone , the contract awarded to the contactors iis as suck, 'the operation of the mines was closed with eifect from 1.4.1983. In turn, the contractors terminated the serviccs of the contract workers. Aggrieved by the same, the contract workers at one of the mines foriaed a unicn and raised an Industrial Dispute, which wes: reierred to 'the 'Central Government Industrial Tribunal. ° The Tribunal dircoted yeinstatement with back wages and consequential benetits.
3. 'The ppetlant Management challenged the award by ma _ way of writ petition This Court by way of interim order directed OS : the Menagemment to provide work to the workers cither under | the Contmctor or VISL with effect from 1.4.1988.
4. Accordingly out 182 contract workers, 161 who ~ yeported for duty were taken on job. Ultimately, the writ petition, writ appeal and SLP filed by the Management also came to be rejected. In pursuance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 102 contract workers who were on the roll of the contractors were taken on the roll of the company oS contract workers.
5. Respondent Nos. 2 snd 3. herein, whe were working with a contractor - My. B. Subremanya Reddy & Company remained unnuthorivediy ebsent from January 1992 and as such, theis services came ty be terminated by the contractor with effect from 25.5. 1992, 'This order of termination was not challenged by sespondent Ros. 2 and 3 - workmen.
6. 'As already noted, in the SLP filed by the Management, os "only the contract workers working were directed to be taken on S : the roll of the company but respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not "approwch the Management. It is also not in dispute that as per
-- the workmen themselves, they were working with a landlord in _ Ramagiri Taluk, Chitradurga District for about 10 to 12 years ; and now they have returned back to the B.B. Mines and made a claim for reinstatement as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents came and received the wages for the period of 1988-89 to 1991-1992 as per the settlement sheet in a ss 'sum of Rs.31,634.25 ps. and Rs, 3i 1944. 51 ps. . respectively. it 7 is to be noted that both the workmen did mot demand employment. In the year 2000, 'these wortancu filed an application before . _ the | Controlling Authority, Central Government, for payizent of patuity. However, in the year 2001, they withdrew. the cloim applications on the ground that they had find writ petition beiace chia Court It is to be noted that nO such writ Fetition vas 'filed. However, the applications came to he withdrawn and gratuity claim cases were closed.
7, "Subsequently, the Management received a claim os _ application from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Centra), i Hubli for reinstatement of the respondents as regular employees 'consejuent to their termination on 25.5.1992. The said claim was mesisted by the Management. However, the 1* respondent "exercising the jurisdiction under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial : Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred the dispute in question to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore with a direction to pass award within 3 months. The reference was "Whether the management of Steel Authority of India Lid., Vishweshwaraiah Iron & Steel Plant, aS Bhadrawati is justified in terminating the services f Sri Haramanaik (respondent No.2) and Sri. Shivasrena. (respondent No.3) with effect from 25.5.1992 P T not, fo whut relief the workmen are entitled to ? . |
8. Being aggrieved by this onder, dated 16.7.2007, the Management approached this Court in the impugned W.P.No. 18515/2007 on the ground that the authority committed an error and illegality in referring the stale and old dispute pertaining to the year 1902, that too after a lapse of 15 years The leamed Single Judge considering the arguments, at the os -_ admission stage itself, rejected the writ petition on the ground 'S thai, before the Government, the respondent workmen had no "opporixniiy to lead evidence and to explain the delay and as
-- such, at the threshold, the claim of the workmen cannot be _ thrown out on the ground of delay.
9. Being aggrieved by the order of this Court, dated 29% November 2007, the present appeal is filed. Notices were ordered and the respondents are represented by the Counsel.
As the scope of enquiry is in a narrow compass, with the =~ consent of the Counsel on both sites, 'the moiter itself was 7 taken up for final disposal.
10. There is no dispute that the services of the workmen were terminated in the year 199% end they have sought for reference in the year 2006. 'But what is disputed is, whether the Tribmmal/Labour Court has jurisdiction to reject the reference on the sole ground of delay and laches. In this regard, the ixemned Counsel for the workmen has relied upon the pronounesment of the Apex Court in the case of IRRIGATION RESEARCH ---us- KRIPAL SINGH [2008-1-LLJ-
_ 69504; SAPAN KUMAR PANDIT -vs- U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY i BOARD jane 2001 SC 2563}; AJAIB SINGH -vs- SIRHIND CO- | OPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD (AIR 1999 SC 1351) and AJAIB SINGH -vs- SIRHIND : SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [1999(6) SCC 82] to contend that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workmen merely on the ground of delay. The plea Bw of delay if raised by the employer is quired to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice end not es a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court, can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even if there is a delay, the provisious of Inciustrial Dizputes Act being social legislation, the relief to he granted '0 the workmen cam be moulded -=pproprintely.
AL - "When we questioned the Counsel for the Management in this regard he submitted that, no doubt as observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, the /--Tiibunel oF the: Labour Court cannot refuse to answer the s : reference because of belated approach, but it is submitted that es bell in the case of KARAN SINGH -vs- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HARYANA STATE MARKETING BOARD ". [MANU/SC/3932/2007] wherein it is held that the Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground delay. If the employer says that the workman has made a stale claim, then the employer must challenge the reference by way of Writ Petition and say that since the claim is belated, there was no industrial dispute. It is also submitted that in the light of the a in a@ rational manner. There appears 19 us to be -
no rational basis. on which the Ceniral Government has exercised powerz in this case afer a lapse of absit seven years of the 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 ~. Giroumstences of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather
- incongrucus 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 "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 from service and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.' 10 a In the case of SM. NILAJKAR "uss MANAGER [2003 SCC (L & ) 380) iti is s held thus:
"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that. on: acount of delay in raising the dicpute by the appellants the _ High Court was justified ix denying relief to
- the appellants. 'We cannot agree. It is true, a3 heid_ in 'Shalimar Works Ltd., -vs-
- - Workemen [1960 (1) SCR 150] that merely becuse the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide. jor a limitation for raising the dispute, it does not mean that the dispute . canbe raised at any time and without _ regard to the delay and reasons therefor. ». There is no limitation prescribed for reference oe of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal: even se it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they proceedings have failed, particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of 4 years in raising the dispute afler even re-employment of most of the old workmen was held to be fatal m Shalimar Works Ltd. -vs- Worlanen [1960(1) SCR 150]. in Nedungadi Bank at 11 TELECOM DISTRICT 12 Lid., -vs- K.P. Madhavankutty (20001 sce. a 455], a delay of 7 years was held to be fatel and disentitled the workmen to any relief. .
In Ratan Chandra Semmanta 8 Unioa of India [1993 Supp (4) cc 67] it was held that a ousual labourer yetrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in ins by delay itelf lapse of time a results in losing the renady and the right as "well. The. delay wouid certainly be fatal if it ON has resulied m material evidence relevant to | setfuctiation being lost and rendered no available."
ot, 7 i3. Keeping in mind the aforesaid pronouncements, we
- have considered the case on hand. As already noted, services of : ; respondent Nos.2 and 3 who were contract workers came be terminated as long back as in the year 1992 by the contractor, who had undertaken the work for The appellant/ Management.
: No doubt the union in respect of other workmen had raised dispute for terminating their work because of closure of the operation of the mines with effect from 1.4.1983 and the Tribunal by its award, directed reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits. This award came to be challenged ao o ws 13 directed the management to provite work to the = contract workers cither under the contractora or VISL with effect from 1.4. 1988. It is the case of the management that in pursuance of the same, the management agsin invited tenders and awarded the contracts io M/s. B Sbramanya Reddy and Company oud three other continctors and provided work to the contract workers. it is also. not. in dispute that after the writ petition and writ appeal Gied by the management came to be dismissed, the. Minegement approached the Hon'ble Supreme Couit by way of SLP which are alao disposed of in the year 1998, i nccordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme i Coust, 102 contract workers, who were on the roll of the contractor, were taken on the roll of the Company. They were os, . also peid arrears of wages. However, few contract workers, who SS _were working under the contractors during the pendency of the 'Matter before this Court obtained the job and few others left the job by remaining absent to the duty continuously. It is the case of the Management that respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained absent for duty unauthorisedly with effect from 1992 and as such by the order, dated 15.5,1992 their services came to be ast foes ee ty terminated. itis also notin dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 7 3 did not challenge the terminaticn. 'However, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dizposing of the SLP Sled by the Management, directed it to take the contract workers on the roll, these respondect Nes Nos.2 and 3 did not approach the Management. However, it is also mot in dispute that on 24.3.1995 they came and reccived arreara of the wages for the period 1988-89 to 1981-92 in a sum of Rs.31,634.25 and Re.31,944.55, 'tin t be noted that even at that stage, they did not demand employaoent and went away after receiving the payment &S "they" were gainfully employed elsewhere and os aes were not interested in the employment with the a 14. Even in the year 2000, these workmen respondent _Nos.2 and 3 though filed application before the Controlling Authority Central Government for payment of gratuity, the same came to be withdrawn on the ground that they had filed the writ petition before this Court. It is not in dispute that no such writ petitions were filed and as such, their gratuity claim cases were also closed. Thereafter, it is only in the year 2006, ste 1S services in the year 1992.
15. No doubt considering tiie cartier ; propouncements of the Apex Court, the Iearnei Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of reference on the ground that it is open for the Management to challenge regarding the stale claim before the 'Tribunal wherein both the parties will have opportiaity to lead evkience in this regard
16. tn our view, taking into consideration the peculier iret and circumstances especially the conduct of the : _ respondents) workmen viz., keeping quite for almost more than "43 years from the date of termination for raising industrial dispwie and especially, when they accepted the wages for the |" period 1988-89 to 1991-92 in the year 1995, as per the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the SLP of the Management and still did not demand employment or questioned the termination, in the year 2000 they filing an application claiming for the gratuity and withdrawing the same, indicates that all along these workmen were aware of not only saw 16 their termination but also th<ir rights or "eativement for . reference challenging termination. Having kept quite all along for more than 13 years, now raising the dispute only because the Apex Court had directed mgulasisation of other workmen, in our view, the stale claim of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be ATS |i the light ofthe pronouncement of the Apex Court in Nedungadi Bonk Lid's case as well as S.M. Nilajkar's case (supra). and as eid in Ratan Chandra Samanta -vs- Union of India, & Others [1993 AIR SCW 2214], a casual labour
-- ; etrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available "jn we by delay itself as lapse of time results in loosing the "remedy and the right as well No doubt there is no limitation or time limit prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for the os 7 appropriate Government to exercise power under Section 10 of the Act, but, that does mean that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive stale matters. Hence, in our view, the demand raised by the respondent for raising the industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent and as such, the learned Single Judge, in our view, was not right in a 17 driving the Management once again 1 go before the Tribunal and raise the question of delay and latches. "As observed by the Apex Court in Karan Singh's case, it is open for the Management to challenge the same before + this. Court and as rightly observed in various pronouncements by the Apex Court, the question whether the sielay and lotches would be fatal in respect of niising of dispute, hos to he considered on the facts of each case. Jn the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated in detsil above, in our view, the dispute being stale as almost 13 yeare have elapsed from the date of termination and inspite of opportunity available, the respondents not taking the _-- recourse at the earliest, especially when in the year 1995, they S "received the hack wages or in the year 2000 when they claimed for greivity, the present reference is barred by delay and latches ™ | and thence, the writ petition ought not to have been rejected by
18. For the reasons stated above, in our view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the reference and the Government Order bearing No.L-26012/ /2007-IR(M), dated 16.7.2007 deserve to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.
st 18 >
19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs, | Be