Kuldeep Singh vs G.M.,Instrument Design D&F.; Center & ...

3) Brief facts:

(b) It is the case of the respondent/Management that the appellant/workman was working on daily wages to meet the exigencies of work and his contract of employment was on day to day basis and that the workman did not render duty for requisite number of days in the 12 preceding months as claimed. It was further denied that any worker junior to the appellant was retained in service or any fresh appointment was made.

(c) On 12.12.2003, the Labour Court, after adverting to the reference made by the Governor of Haryana as to the non-employment of the appellant and after framing necessary issues has held that the respondent/Management is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act and found that the workman rendered the duty for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months but the Management terminated his 3 services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, so the order impugned is illegal, null and void and deserves to be set aside. Having found so on the material issues 1, 5 and 6 in favour of the workman, however, on the ground of delay in raising the demand and finding that the reference is bad and incompetent being raised so belatedly dismissed the claim of the workman.

The Labour Court took up the reference as Adjudication Case No. 158 of 1993. The respondent Board filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court assailing the aforesaid reference order and also praying for quashing the adjudication case pending in the Labour Court. The appellant was arrayed as Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition. A Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the delay is so inordinate that the dispute has ceased to exist by efflux of time and hence no reference under the U.P. Act should have been made. Accordingly, the order of reference passed by the Government was quashed by the High Court holding that the workman kept silent for more than 15 years and he woke up only after the petition of other co-workmen was allowed and he made no efforts to 13 get his dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. By holding so, allowed the writ petition of the Management. The decision further shows that along with the appellant, the Board retrenched ten other workmen. Though the Industrial Tribunal passed an award granting retrenchment compensation and certain further other reliefs, the Union was not satisfied with the said award and they filed a writ petition in 1980 before the High Court of Allahabad. On 28.04.1988, the High Court allowed that writ petition and held that retrenchment was bad in law and the workmen concerned are entitled to be reinstated. Though the Board filed special leave petition in this Court which was dismissed in 1989. According to the appellant, he was entertaining the expectation that the Board would extend the same benefit to him. He was proceeding with his request to the Board that he should be treated on par with eight workmen some of whom were reemployed by the Board. When the appellant found that 14 this was not done, he approached the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State Government. His application for condoning the delay in initiating conciliation proceeding was disallowed by the Conciliation Officer. However, the Deputy Labour Commissioner went to his rescue as the delay was condoned and the conciliation proceedings were revived. This happened on 28.01.1992. It was in the aforesaid background that the State Government made the reference for adjudication on 29.03.1993. Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is almost in tune with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also there is no time limit fixed for making the reference for a dispute for adjudication. Considering the identical words i.e., "at any time" used in Section 10 (1) of the Act and Section 4 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, considered the main question namely, "Was the industrial dispute in existence on the date of reference for adjudication?" While considering the same, a three-Judge Bench decision of 15 this Court as to the scope of the very same provision, namely, Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was cited before the Bench. In M/s Western India Match Co. Ltd. vs. The Western India Match Co. Workers Union and Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 225 = AIR 1970 SC 1205, the learned Judges made the following observations:-

After saying so, allowed the appeal of the workman and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

22) In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, we set aside the award of the Labour Court insofar as holding that the reference by the State Government is bad and incompetent being raised so belatedly and dismissing the claim statement on this ground and the order of the High Court dated 31.10.2006 in C.W.P. No. 8774 of 2005 affirming the said order of the Labour Court and dismissing the writ petition filed by the workman. In view of the conclusion of the Labour Court with regard to Issue Nos. 1, 5 and 6 deciding in favour of workman holding that the Management terminated his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and the said order is illegal, null and void deserves to be set aside, we order reinstatement of the appellant- workman with consequential service benefits but without back wages within a period of eight weeks. Since the appellant is fighting for his survival for more than a decade, we award a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the 24 respondent-Management directly to the appellant/workman within the same period.

23) The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.

DECEMBER 3, 2010.