Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kailaras vs State Of M.P. on 22 May, 2017
1
WP.3557 / 2006
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
24.05. 2017
None for the petitioner.
Mrs. Ami Prabal, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent /
State.
This matter is called out and taken up from the category of SUMMER VACATION WRIT CIVIL.
1. Looking to the controversy involved which appears to be settled by authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, this Court proceeds to finally adjudicate the matter.
2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 /227 is to the order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexur P/1) of the respondent No.3, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gwalior referring the dispute to the Labour Court whether the termination of service of respondent No.4-workman falls within the definition of unlawful retrenchment or not.
3. The sole ground raised by the employer - petitioner is that the termination of the workman took place on 11.07.1989 though Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act does not prescribe any period of limitation, delayed raising of the dispute by the workman by itself renders the dispute to be non-existent thereby ousting the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.
4. Power vested with the Conciliation Officer u/s 10 is to the extent that in case of failure of conciliation between the management and workman the existing or apprehended industrial dispute is required to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. Thus, the only aspect which is necessary for the Conciliation Officer to ascertain after failure of the conciliation process is whether the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Whether 2 WP.3557 / 2006 the dispute raised is delayed or not is for the Labour Court to decide and not for the Conciliation Officer to dwell upon.
5. The decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar; (2014) 10 SCC 301 can profitably be referred to. The relevant portion are quoted below for convenience and ready reference :-
"11. In our view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court for adjudication of the existing industrial dispute; it has erroneously held it to be barred by limitation. This award was further erroneously affirmed by the High Court, which is bad in law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. According to Section 10(1) of the Act, the appropriate government 'at any time' may refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, if it is of the opinion that such an industrial dispute between the workman & the employer exists or is apprehended. Section 10(1) reads as follows:
"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals -(1) Where the appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing-
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication."
Thus, it is necessary for us to carefully observe the phrase 'at any time' used in this section. Therefore, there arises an issue whether the question of limitation is applicable to the reference of the existing industrial dispute that would be made by the State Government either to the Labour Court or 3 WP.3557 / 2006 Industrial Tribunal for adjudication at the instance of the appellant.
12. This Court in Avon Services Production Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal (1979) 1 SCC 1, after interpreting the phrases 'at any time' rendered in Section 10(1) of the Act, held thus:(SCC p.7, para 7) "7.......Section 10(1) enables the appropriate Government to make reference of an industrial dispute which exists or is apprehended at any time to one of the authorities mentioned in the section. How and in what manner or through what machinery the Government is apprised of the dispute is hardly relevant.......The only requirement for taking action under Section 10(1) is that there must be some material before the Government which will enable the appropriate Government to form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This is an administrative function of the Government as the expression is understood in contradistinction to judicial or quasi-judicial function..."
Therefore, it is implicit from the above case that in case of delay in raising the industrial dispute, the appropriate government under Section 10(1) of the Act has the power, to make reference to either Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, if it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended at any time, between the workman and the employer.
13. Further, in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors(2001) 6 SCC 222, it is held by this Court as under (SCC p.228, para 15):-
"15.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 Section4K 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 4 WP.3557 / 2006 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. In view of the above, the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner referring the dispute of alleged unlawful termination of workman - respondent No.4 for adjudication cannot be found fault with.
7. Accordingly, the present petition having no substance is dismissed.
8. The order of the Court be communicated to the respondent No.3.
(Sheel Nagu)
sarathe Judge