Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Co-Operative ... on 10 February, 1998
Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P. Madhavankutty And Ors on 28 January, 2000
6. What follows from the aforesaid judgments is that delay is
certainly a factor to be countenanced in adjudication of the industrial
dispute. Though Sapan Kumar Pandit (supra) holds that once a
reference has been made, it could not be quashed for the reason of delay
and the counsel for the respondent workman contends that the challenge
if any by the petitioner employer on the ground of delay should have
been to the reference, as in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (supra) but I am
unable to agree with the said contention. If the Court lays it down as a
W.P.(C) 5796/2001 Page 6 of 19
general rule that the challenge, if any, on account of delay should be by
impugning the order of the appropriate Government of reference and the
employer would not be entitled to impugn the award on the ground of
delay / laches even if a defence before the industrial adjudicator, for the
reason of having not challenged the order of reference, the same is likely
to delay considerably the adjudication by the Industrial Adjudicator; then
writ petitions challenging the reference orders would be preferred and
the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator in the reference would
remain stayed / pending judicial review of the reference order. It is not
appropriate for the Courts to take a view which is likely to delay
adjudication of the industrial disputes. It is more practicable that once a
reference has been made, the dispute is adjudicated and the challenge, if
any, to the reference on the ground of delay and / or to the award, being
made on all grounds after the award has been published, rather than at
the intermittent stage. I therefore hold that the petitioner employer in the
present case is entitled to contend as it is found to have done before the
Labour Court also, that the respondent workman is not entitled to any
relief merely for the reason of delay of 20 years in raising the dispute.
Sapan Kumar Pandit vs U.P. State Electricity Board And Ors on 24 July, 2001
6. What follows from the aforesaid judgments is that delay is
certainly a factor to be countenanced in adjudication of the industrial
dispute. Though Sapan Kumar Pandit (supra) holds that once a
reference has been made, it could not be quashed for the reason of delay
and the counsel for the respondent workman contends that the challenge
if any by the petitioner employer on the ground of delay should have
been to the reference, as in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (supra) but I am
unable to agree with the said contention. If the Court lays it down as a
W.P.(C) 5796/2001 Page 6 of 19
general rule that the challenge, if any, on account of delay should be by
impugning the order of the appropriate Government of reference and the
employer would not be entitled to impugn the award on the ground of
delay / laches even if a defence before the industrial adjudicator, for the
reason of having not challenged the order of reference, the same is likely
to delay considerably the adjudication by the Industrial Adjudicator; then
writ petitions challenging the reference orders would be preferred and
the proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator in the reference would
remain stayed / pending judicial review of the reference order. It is not
appropriate for the Courts to take a view which is likely to delay
adjudication of the industrial disputes. It is more practicable that once a
reference has been made, the dispute is adjudicated and the challenge, if
any, to the reference on the ground of delay and / or to the award, being
made on all grounds after the award has been published, rather than at
the intermittent stage. I therefore hold that the petitioner employer in the
present case is entitled to contend as it is found to have done before the
Labour Court also, that the respondent workman is not entitled to any
relief merely for the reason of delay of 20 years in raising the dispute.
Sadhu Ram vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 25 August, 1983
7. Faced with the aforesaid, the counsel for the respondent
workman contends that this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
ought not to interfere with the finding of the Labour Court of the
respondent workman owing to the criminal prosecution (supra) being
W.P.(C) 5796/2001 Page 7 of 19
justified in raising the dispute after delay of 20 years. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Sadhu Ram Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation AIR
1984 SC 1467 holding that the question of jurisdictional facts decided by
the Labour Court and which it is competent to decide are not open to
judicial review and on M/s Little Sons & Company Vs. Amar Nath 1978
LAB I.C. 430 (Punjab & Haryana) to the effect that the High Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not
normally upset the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunals and the
writ of certiorari can be issued only for correcting the errors of law
which are apparent on the face of the record.
Indian Overseas Bank vs I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Anr on 11 April, 2000
Reliance in this regard is
also placed on Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen
Workers' Union IV (1999) SLT 540 laying down that the findings of
fact recorded by a fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose,
ordinarily should be considered to have become final and cannot be
disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on material or
evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the Writ Court.
Seema Ghosh vs Tata Iron & Steel Company on 28 August, 2006
8. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner employer in this respect
draws attention to Seema Ghosh Vs. Tata Iron & Steel Company (2006)
7 SCC 722 where it was held that an award passed without regard to
Supreme Court decision on the point in issue is liable to be interfered
with and it was held that misplaced sympathy for the workman cannot
come in the way of the High Court interfering with the award.
Food Corporation Of India Workers' ... vs Food Corporation Of India And Others on 1 March, 1985
15. Next contention of the counsel for the petitioner employer is that
the Labour Court erroneously rejected its case of the respondent
workman having left the services of its own. The petitioner employer
had sought to prove the same from the evidence led by the respondent
workman in the criminal prosecution where it was so contended. It was
the case of the respondent workman that he could not be prosecuted for
embezzlement for the reason of his having left the employment of the
petitioner employer and settled his accounts. The petitioner employer
sought to prove the same by filing the copies of the record of the
criminal prosecution and which was collectively given Mark „A‟ by the
Labour Court. The Labour Court however held that the petitioner
employer has failed to get the original documents proved and exhibited
before the Labour Court and the copies of the record of the Criminal
W.P.(C) 5796/2001 Page 13 of 19
Court on which Mark „A‟ had been put could not be looked into. It is the
case of the petitioner employer that it had tried its best to summon the
record of the Criminal Court but which was not found and that the
technicalities of exhibiting and proving the documents as per the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to the Labour Court. Reliance in this
regard was placed on Food Corporation of India Workers Union Vs.
Food Corporation of India JT 1996 (6) SC 724. The same argument
has been urged before this Court also. Though there is merit in the said
contention of the counsel for the petitioner employer but the petitioner
employer before this Court also has not filed even the photocopies of the
evidence in the criminal prosecution. This Court is therefore unable to
even fathom the evidence, if any, in the criminal prosecution, and in the
absence of the same, the finding of the Labour Court in this regard
cannot be interfered with.