Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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."

.

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 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 .

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 circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference."

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 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 .