Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 507 (HP)

H. P. State Electricity Board v. Narayan Singh

2014-04-30

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the records pertaining to the award passed by the Labour Court, as made available to us in Court, we are of the considered view that the award dated 12th August, 2008, passed in Reference No. 151/2001, by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla needs to be quashed and set aside beldars by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board-appellants herein. It is not in dispute that they were engaged on 16.8.1995 and served only till 15.06.1996. They sought reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), only in the year 2000. Undisputedly, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 17.09.2000. 3. Significantly, the Tribunal framed issue No. 3 with regard to the claim being barred on account of delay and latches. This issue, in our considered view, was summarily answered, without even adverting to the fact situation, in favour of the claimants. Whether the claim was stale or not, more so in the backdrop of the fact that claimants had served only for a period of ten months, required consideration in the light of settled principles of law. 4. Recently, the Apex Court, vide judgment, dated 16th August, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota Versus Mohan Lal, after taking into account its earlier decisions in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another (1999) 6 SCC 82 ; Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 ; Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways (2001) 1 SCC 133 and Assistant Engineer, Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 , has held as under:- “20. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the I.D. Act, but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.” 5. In the instant case, we find that Tribunal, without deciding this issue as was required in law, directed re-engagement of the claimants, without also going into the question, as to whether they worked for more than 240 days or not. Whether their re-engagement was justified or not, required detailed consideration in accordance with law. 6. Significantly, this aspect of the matter was not taken into account while disposing of the writ petition, filed by the appellant-petitioners-employee. 7. As such, we quash and set aside the award, dated 12th August, 2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No.151/2001, titled as of 2011, titled as Narayan Singh and others Vs. HPSEB and another and CWP No. 2037 of 2008, titled as HPSEB and others Vs. Narayan Singh and others, remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh in the light of directions issued by the Apex Court in its various decisions. 8. Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, while contending that claimants are entitled to 50% back wages, has invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and others. We leave all questions open, to be decided by the Tribunal while passing the award. 9. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 2nd June, 2014. An endeavour shall be made to conclude the proceedings within three months from today. Both the appeals are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.