Bipendra Nath Pandey, aged about 24 years, son of Late S.K. Pandey, having his v. 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, P.O
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 2603 of 2019 Bipendra Nath Pandey, aged about 24 years, son of Late S.K. Pandey, having his resident and office at Sendra Bansjora Colliery, P.O. and Petitioner P.S. Bansjora, Dist. Dhanbad … … Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. Shram Shakti Bhawan 2. The Section Officer, M.K. Singh, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. Shram Shakti Bhawan 3. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its General Manager, Sijua Area, P.O. and P.S. Sijua Dist. Dhanbad … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
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 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.” service were from 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the writ records, this court finds that as per the averment made in the writ petition, the Union raised the industrial dispute for the first time through letter dated 22.06.2016. The ex-employee had expired on 19.05.1990. In view of the aforesaid fact that the claim was raised after a long gap and there is no averment in the writ petition with regard to raising of dispute prior to the year 2016, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication on account of the dispute being stale does not call for any interference. Admittedly the ex-employee had expired on 19.05.1990 and the industrial dispute was sought to be raised by the Union on 22.06.2016 seeking monetary benefit for the 1st wife of the ex-employee and compassionate appointment for the son of the 2nd wife of the ex-employee. 9.
Arguments
--- : Dr. Malay Kumar Laik, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Manjushri Patra, Advocate : Ms. Mohua Palit, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate : Ms. Leena Mukherjee, C.G.C. --- 08/30.04.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “In the present writ petition the petitioners prays for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the respondent refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication before Labour Court/Tribunal on the ground mentioned therein.” 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 whereby the Ministry of Labour has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground of delay. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have opposed the prayer and has submitted that the dispute was raised for the first time by the Union on 22.06.2016 and the claim is relating to the compassionate appointment and the monetary benefits to the dependent of Late Habu Mahto who expired as back as on 19.05.1990. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the dispute suffers from delay and laches and the claim is a stale claim and have referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited versus K.P. Madhavan Kutty reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 Para no. 6 and 7 to submit that although the law does not prescribe any time to raise the dispute, but stale claim cannot be raised. 6. In response, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is at the stage of adjudication to be seen as to whether the claim is stale or not. 7. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited versus K.P. Madhavan Kutty(supra), it has been held in paragraph 6 that although law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act but it is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. It has been held that Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. It has also been held that a dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act and as to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgement is as under: - “6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact, it could be 2
Decision
This court also finds that the writ petition has been filed by an individual who claims to represent the dependents of the deceased workman before this court. He also claims to be the president/office bearer of the labour union namely, Janta Mazdoor Sangh. However, the fact remains that this writ petition has neither been filed by the labour union though the dispute was raised by the labour union namely, Janta Mazdoor Sangh nor the same has been filed by the aggrieved persons. 10. Further, in view of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court applied to the facts of this case, this court is of the considered view that the respondent authority has rightly refused to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court/Industrial Court by stating that the dispute has been raised after 3 expiry of 26 years from the date of death of the ex-employee. This court is of the considered view that the dispute relates to stale claim and has rightly not been referred to labour court/industrial tribunal for adjudication. In view of the aforesaid and considering the nature of dispute, no interference is called for in the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 11. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4