Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1500 (HP)

Inder Singh v. State of H. P.

2015-10-14

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 7.7.2012 passed by learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that on 1.1.1999 petitioner was engaged by co-respondent No. 3 on daily wages on muster roll as Beldar. On 8.7.2005 services of 1087 workmen retrenched by co-respondent No. 3 including petitioner. On 30.3.2009 retrenchment order of 43 workmen set aside and quashed by H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala. On 16.9.2009 services of 43 workmen have been reinstated by co-respondent No. 3 but petitioner was not given opportunity for re-employment being a senior workmen. On 16.6.2009 petitioner raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 against co-respondent No. 3 to set aside the retrenchment order dated 8.7.2005. It is pleaded that on 27.1.2010 workman Nand Lal had raised the industrial dispute under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to set aside retrenchment order dated 8.7.2005 after more than five years. It is pleaded that case of Nand Lal was referred to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala for adjudication. It is pleaded that Inder Singh raised the industrial dispute after lapse of more than seven years and his case was also referred to learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala. It is pleaded that on 7.7.2012 learned Labour Commissioner H.P. did not refer the case of petitioner to learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication. Prayer to set aside order dated 7.7.2012 passed by learned Labour Commissioner sought and further prayer to refer the dispute of petitioner to learned H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of co-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that Industrial Dispute Act 1947 stood amended wherein workmen can directly approach the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court within a period of three years from the date of termination. It is pleaded that matter could not be settled before the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer Mandi and thereafter the report was submitted to the Labour Commissioner. It is pleaded that petitioner had raised the dispute after four years. It is pleaded that respondents have not violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and had issued the impugned order dated 7.7.2012 as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. It is pleaded that petitioner had raised the dispute after four years. It is pleaded that respondents have not violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and had issued the impugned order dated 7.7.2012 as per provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- Point No.1 Whether civil writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of civil writ petition? Point No.2 Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that order passed by learned Labour Commissioner dated 7.7.2012 is contrary to law is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused order dated 7.7.2012 passed by learned Labour Commissioner H.P. Learned Labour Commissioner H.P. has mentioned in order that there is no justification to refer the matter to Labour Courtcum- Industrial Tribunal for adjudication because petitioner did not raise the dispute w.e.f. 7.7.2005 to 16.6.2009 continuously for four years. Learned Labour Commissioner has held that present dispute is faded away with passage of time and is no more in existence. Learned Labour Commissioner further held that demand notice is fictitious and frivolous. Learned Labour Commissioner held that there is no justification to raise the matter to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala for adjudication in view of ruling given by High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 398 of 2001 titled M.C. Paonta Sahib vs. State of H.P. and others and ruling given by the Full Bench of High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 1486 of 2007 titled Laiq Ram vs. State of H.P. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in (2014)10 SCC 301 titled Raghubir Singh vs. GM Haryana Roadways Hissar held that there is no limitation for reference to Labour Court under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in (2014)10 SCC 301 titled Raghubir Singh vs. GM Haryana Roadways Hissar held that there is no limitation for reference to Labour Court under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It was held that words “At any time” mentioned in Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 clearly define that law of limitation would not be applicable qua proceedings of reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It was held in case reported in (2015)4 SCC 458 titled Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and others that provisions of Article 137 of Limitation Act 1963 would not be applicable to Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and it was held that relief would not be denied to workman merely on ground of delay. As per Article 141 of Constitution of India law declared by the Supreme Court is binding upon all Courts within territory of India. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between ruling given by the High Court and ruling given by the Apex Court of India then ruling given by the Apex Court of India always prevails. It is proved on record that cases of Inder Singh and Nand Lal were also referred to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after lapse of five years. It is held that on the concept of right to equality as mentioned under Article 14 of Constitution of India it is expedient in the ends of justice that case of petitioner should be referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Dharamshala for adjudication. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner. Point No. 2 (Final Order) 8. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India is accepted and order of learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh dated 7.7.2012 is set aside and co-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refer the dispute of petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 10 of H.P. Industrial Disputes Act within one month from today. No order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.