Mr. S. R. Patil, Advocate for the v. A. Pawar and Pradeep Salunke
Facts
(1) wp-3018-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.3018 OF 2023Rohidas Lotan Patil,Age- 71 years, Occ-Nil,R/o- At post Hol Village, Taluka- Sindkheda,District- Dhule...Petitioner/Ori. Second Party WorkmanVersusChief Executive Officer,Jalgaon Jillha Dekherekh Sahkari Sangh,Ganesh Colony, Unity Chamber,Jalgaon, District- Jalgaon...Respondent/Ori. First Party Employer …Mr. S. R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. V. A. Pawar and Pradeep Salunke, Advocate for Respondent.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Reserved On : 01st AUGUST, 2025.Pronounce On : 13th AUGUST, 2025.JUDGMENT:- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of theparties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.2.The petitioner impugns judgment and award dated25.11.2021 passed by Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference IDANo.2/2019, thereby rejecting Reference.3.On 11.06.1975 petitioner was appointed as Secretary withJalgaon Zilla Dekharekh Sahakari Sangh and posted at VividhKaryakari Society at Janve. On 05.06.1982, petitioner has beenterminated from services on allegation of misappropriation. (2) wp-3018-2023.odtAccording to petitioner, two criminal cases were registered againsthim with allegations of misappropriation. The RCC No.59/1982and RCC/82/1987 were tried before learned Judicial MagistrateFirst Class at Amalner. The petitioner has been acquitted on22.07.1987 and 15.02.2013 respectively.4.According to petitioner, he made representations torespondent-employer seeking reinstatement with continuity ofservices vide representations dated 11.02.1988, 05.01.1990 and16.08.1993. The petitioner has also given legal notices dated13.02.2014 and 22.02.2016 and demanded for reinstatement withcontinuity of services till the date of attaining age ofsuperannuation. However, respondent failed to act upon same orreply to petitioner.5.The petitioner raised industrial dispute before CompetentAuthority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nashik. Whenconciliation failed, industrial dispute was referred for adjudicationto Labour Court at Jalgaon vide Reference IDA No.2/2019. Thelearned Labour Court dismissed Reference mainly on the ground ofdelay and laches vide impugned judgment and award dated25.11.2021.6.Mr. S. R. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for petitionersubmits that no limitation is provided for making IDA Reference or
Legal Reasoning
(8) wp-3018-2023.odtMaking of reference is only an administrative function. Atthe same time, on the basis of material on record,satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute or theapprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Suchexistence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomesa condition precedent, though it will be only subjectivesatisfaction based on material on record. Since, we are notconcerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases wherethere is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion thatfollows would confine to existence of an industrial dispute.Dispute or difference arises when one party make a demandand other party rejects the same. It is held by this Court innumber of cases that before raising the industrial disputemaking of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In such ascenario, if the services of a workman are terminated andhe does not make the demand and/or raise the issuealleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter orwithin reasonable time and raises the same afterconsiderable lapse of period, whether it can be said thatindustrial dispute still exist. Since there is no period oflimitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the disputeeven belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a longperiod, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute stillexists? Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law oflimitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workmanthat there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he hasto demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsedand there are laches and delays, such delay has notresulted into making the industrial dispute seized to exist.Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactoryexplanation for these laches and delays and demonstratethat the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive,delay would not come in his way because of the reason thatlaw of limitation has no application. On the other hand, ifbecause of such delay dispute no longer remains alive andis to be treated as “dead”, then it would be non-existentdispute which cannot be referred.”13.The aforesaid legal position would make explicit thatexistence of industrial dispute is a paramount and importantconsideration while dealing with Reference. Only existent orapprehended industrial disputes can be referred for consideration (9) wp-3018-2023.odtof Court or Tribunal. However, at the time of taking decisionwhether Reference to be made or not, appropriate Governmentneed not venture into merits of dispute, as making Reference isonly administrative function. Only because Reference is madeunder Section 10(1), Court or Tribunal is not precluded fromentering into aspects of delay and laches or to record findings as toexistence or non-existence of dispute.14.It can be observed that for raising industrial dispute demandis pre-condition. In case, employer fails to make demand, disputecannot be referred. In present case, although petitioner has beenterminated from services in the year 1982, demand for makingReference is made sometimes in the year 2019. Accordingly,Reference was made. The termination of petitioner was forallegation of misappropriation. Two criminal cases registeredagainst him ended in acquittal in the year 1987 and 2013. It is notcase of petitioner that he was prevented from making demand forReference or to approach Labour Court against alleged illegaltermination under MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.15.In this background, it becomes imperative to examinewhether dispute was existing, when demand was raised. It is truethat law of limitation would not apply when it is shown that thereis dispute in praesenti. However, from record of present case, it isnot discernible that delay in making industrial dispute was for (10) wp-3018-2023.odtsufficient reasons, petitioner has not explained delay and laches bybringing material disclosing existence of dispute. Sequence ofevents as demonstrated above, certainly shows that stale claim wasreferred to Labour Court. Therefore, even no limitation isprescribed, when for long period petitioner failed to take resort toremedy provided under law for redressal of his grievance, Courtcan deny relief presuming that person has waived his right. Inpresent case, petitioner has been terminated in the year 1982. Heattained age of superannuation in the year 2009. The criminalcases registered against him ended in acquittal in the year 1987and 2013 and notice of demand was issued sometimes in the year2019. Therefore, conclusion is that Reference of stale or non-existence of claim was made under provision of Section 10 ofIndustrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court is right in refusingto entertain such reference.16.In that view of the matter, there is no merit in Writ Petition.Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed.17.Rule is discharged.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/August-2025
Arguments
(3) wp-3018-2023.odtits adjudication by Labour Court. However, learned Labour Courtrejected Reference mainly on the ground that it has been madeafter 37 years and petitioner failed to approach Labour Courtunder provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unionsand Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short‘MRTU and PULP Act, 1971’). According to Mr. Patil, LabourCourt failed to frame issue of delay and laches and grantopportunity to petitioner to advance his submission in this regard.He would further submit that petitioner was terminated fromservices without proper enquiry. The allegations ofmisappropriation made against petitioner were not substantiatedin criminal proceedings, which resulted into acquittal. Mr. Patilrelies upon observations of Supreme Court of India in case ofRaghubir Singh Vs. Ganeral Manager, Haryana Roadways,Hissar1 to contend that Reference cannot be rejected only on theground of delay and laches. According to him, once CompetentAuthority makes Reference in exercise of powers conferred underSection 10(1)(c) of Industrial Dispute Act to Labour Court orIndustrial Tribunal, issue of limitation does not arise.7.Per contra, Mr. Pawar, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent submits that although limitation period is notprescribed under Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court orIndustrial Tribunal cannot entertain stale claim, only because1(2014) 10 SCC 301 (4) wp-3018-2023.odtReference is made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.According to him, making of Reference is only an administrativefunction and Reference is required to be made only on satisfactionbased on material on record, where there is apprehension ofindustrial dispute.8.Having considered submissions advanced, undisputed factsleading to present Writ Petition can be stated as under:(a)The petitioner was appointed as Secretary w.e.f. 11.06.1975with respondent-Sangh.(b)On 05.06.1982, services of petitioner were terminated withallegations of misappropriation.(c)The petitioner was subjected to criminal prosecution inRCC/59/1982 and RCC/82/1987 for offences punishableunder Sections 408, 467, 477(A) of Indian Penal Code.(d)The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amalner onconclusion of trial, acquitted petitioner vide judgments ofacquittal dated 22.07.1987 and 15.02.2013.(e)Meanwhile, petitioner made some representations seekinghis reinstatement with continuity in service from the date ofdismissal till date he attains age of superannuation i.e.31.05.2009.(f)On 11.04.2018, petitioner sent demand notice for quashingand setting aside dismissal order dated 05.06.1982 and (5) wp-3018-2023.odtraised industrial dispute before Deputy Commissioner ofLabour, who referred industrial dispute for adjudication toLabour Court Jalgaon. (g)The Labour Court, Jalgaon dismissed Reference videimpugned order dated 25.11.2021.9.Perusal of reasons adopted by Labour Court, it can beobserved that rejection of Reference is mainly on the ground thatpetitioner raised industrial dispute after 37 years of termination ofservices, so also he failed to exhaust remedy to assail terminationorder under provision of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.10.Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act reads thus:“10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. (1) 1[Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that anyindustrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time],by order in writing,--(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof;or(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant tothe dispute to a Court for inquiry; or2[(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connectedwith, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matterspecified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court foradjudication; or(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with,or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matterspecified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to aTribunal for adjudication: (6) wp-3018-2023.odtProvided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified inthe Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than onehundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it sothinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):]11.Plain reading of aforesaid provision would show that whenindustrial dispute exists or is apprehended, appropriateGovernment can refer dispute to Court for enquiry or if relates toany matter specified in Second Schedule to Labour Court foradjudication or make Reference to Tribunal, if dispute relates tomatters specified in Second Schedule or Third Schedule. It is,therefore, obvious that Reference can be made only when industrialdisputes exists or is apprehended by Competent Authority. It isimplicit that even in case of delay in raising industrial dispute,appropriate Government has power to make Reference, if it is ofthe opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended atany time between workman and employer. In case of RaghubirSingh (supra) Supreme Court of India by giving reference toearlier judgments in case of Assistant Engineer, RajasthanState Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota v.Mohan Lal2, Avon Services Production Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd.Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana & Ors.3 and S. M. Nilajkarand Ors. Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka4 observedin paragraph no.17 as under:2(2013) 14 SCC 543.3(1979) 1 SCC 1.4(2003) 4 SCC 27. (7) wp-3018-2023.odt“17.In view of the legal principles laid down by this Courtin the S. M. Nilajkar8, the reference of the industrialdispute made in the case on hand by the State Governmentto the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrialdispute between the parties was made within a reasonabletime, considering the circumstances in which the workmanwas placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pendingagainst him and secondly, the respondent had assured theworkman that he would be reinstated after his acquittalfrom the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable toadjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay inraising and referring the matter, since there is no mentionof any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to thedelay. Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising theindustrial dispute and referring the same to the LabourCourt for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does notdebar the workman from claiming rightful relief from hisemployer.”12.Later on, in case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint DirectorSericulture Department and Another5, Supreme Court againconsidered impact of delay and laches in Reference made underSection 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act and observed in paragraphno.14 as under:“40. An industrial dispute has to be referred by theappropriate Government for adjudication and the workmancannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunaldirectly, except in those cases which are covered by Section 2Aof the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act inthose cases where the appropriate Government forms anopinion that 'any industrial dispute exists or isapprehended'. The words 'industrial dispute exists' are ofparamount importance unless there is an existence of anindustrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it isapprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), noreference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension ofan industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making thereference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whethera reference is to be made or not, the appropriateGovernment is not to go into the merits of the dispute.52015 (15) SCC 1.