Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 777 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. Industrial Tribunal

2014-05-02

G.S.SANDHAWALIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby a sum of Rs. 40,000 has been awarded to the petitioner-workman on account of the fact that he had worked with the respondents from 15.8.1986 to 29.6.1993 by the Labour Court, Patiala. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the case of the workman was that he had joined on 15.8.1986 as Beldar with the Malikpur Construction Sub-Division No. 4 and his services were terminated on 30.6.1993. He had been transferred in the year 1991 to the Tunneling Sub-Division No. 1, Ranjit Sagar-Dam Construction Irrigation Department, Shahpur Kandi where he had worked till the said date and had fallen ill and remained under treatment upto 30.10.2004. He was informed by the management that his name has been struck off from the rolls vide 'letter dated 8.11.1995 and it thus amounted to retrenchment and the procedure for retrenchment had not been followed. He had been approaching the respondents but all in vain and the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have been violated. Resultantly the industrial dispute was raised. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Patiala was also objected to since the workman had worked at Gurdaspur. The defence taken was that he had remained absent willfully from 30.6.1993 and had been informed regarding his absence by registered notice dated 13.9.1993 and asked to resume his duties otherwise his services would be terminated as per rules. In accordance with the certified standing order applicable on work charge employees the services were terminated as no reply was received regarding letter dated 13.9.1993. The work of the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project had been completed and had been dedicated to the nation on 4.3.2001 and the numerous staff of the different category had also been declared surplus. 2. The Labour Court after noticing the evidence of the parties held that the services of the workman were terminated due to alleged misconduct without issuing of charge-sheet or holding any enquiry and he had worked for 240 days and therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. However, on account of delay since the dispute was raised only in the year 2006 instead of directing reinstatement, compensation of Rs. However, on account of delay since the dispute was raised only in the year 2006 instead of directing reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 40,00/- was ordered to be paid. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement once such a finding had been recorded. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference. In the present case, the Labour Court has been very generous towards the petitioner. It is a case of a stale industrial dispute which had long died. There is no denying the fact that from 1993 onwards his name was struck off from the rolls due to abandoning the job by the workman and as per admitted case of the petitioner since he himself alleged that he was suffering from medical problem. For a long period of 13 years the workman chose to sit at home on whatever account though he tried to justify that he was suffering from mental illness and reliance has been placed on Ex. W11. A perusal of the same which has been produced in Court today would go on to show that it is merely a certificate that he remained under treatment from 30.6.1993 to 30.10.2004. Nothing was forwarded to the department to show that the workman was not well at that point of time and was not in a position to report for duty. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 455 has held that where ever a workman raised some dispute, it does not become an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government cannot, in a mechanical fashion, make a reference of the alleged dispute and the said reference could be destructive to industrial peace. It was further held that if the law does not prescribe any time limit, it does not mean that it can be raised at any point of time and it is to be exercised rationally and in a reasonable manner. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside and that of the Single Judge was restored quashing the reference. The relevant observations read as under:-- 6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers u/s 10 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside and that of the Single Judge was restored quashing the reference. The relevant observations read as under:-- 6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers u/s 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 a lapse of about 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 u/s 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 u/s 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when 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 and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent. 7. In the present appeal it is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in his dismissal, were in any way illegal or there was even any irregularity. He availed his remedy of appeal under the rules governing his conditions of service. It could not be said that in the circumstances an industrial dispute did arise or was even apprehended after a lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become an industrial dispute and the appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming it as industrial dispute. Whenever a workman raises some dispute it does not become an industrial dispute and the appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming it as industrial dispute. The Central Government lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in invoking the power u/s 10 of the Act and there being no industrial dispute existing or even apprehended. The purpose of reference is to keep industrial peace in an establishment. The present reference is destructive to the industrial peace and defeats the very object and purpose of the Act. The bank was justified in thus moving the High Court seeking an order to quash the reference in question. Accordingly in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) and keeping in view the fact that the workman had absented himself and chose to sleep over his right for a long period and the relationship of employer/employee came to an end in the year 1993, there is no ground to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.