LexAJAIB SINGH versus THE SIRHIND COOPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AJAIB SINGH v. THE SIRHIND COOPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. APRIL 8, 1999 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Labour Laws : A B Termination of workman-Termination without complying with the C provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act-Demand of reinstatement by the workman after 7 years- Matter referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court-Management did not take the plea of limitation in reference of dispute before the labour court-Held, not having raised such plea, workmen could not be deprived of the benefits of the Act-More so D when the object of the Act was to create social welfare-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, history traced and object restated-Trade Disputes Act, 1929 (as amended in 1938)- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1945- Defence of India Rules, Rule Bl-A-Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137. Practice and Procedure-Plea-New plea-Cannot be taken at the E appellate stage to deprive the benefits of the social welfare statutes-Findings of facts returned by the High Court in writ proceedings, without pleading- Unjustified-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226, 227-Interference on findings of fact by lower courts-Jurisdiction-Administrative Law. Interpretation of Statues-Interpretation of Welfare Statutes-Statements F of objects and reasons-Relevancy of-Constitution of India, 1950, Part IV- Welfare State. The services of the appellant were terminated without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was G referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court. The management justified their action on the ground that the workman, being a salesman, had embezzled thousands of rupees. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and adjudicate the reference was also disputed Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages. The management did not press the issue of jurisdiction before the Labour Court. Management H 505 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. A filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the award mainly on .·~ the ground that the workman had approached the labour court i.tfter a prolonged delay. It was not in dispute that the service of the workman was terminated on 16.7.1974 and he had issued the notice of demand only on 8.12.1981. Single Judge of the High Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief as he had slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted B with the management at a belated stage when it might have been difficult for o the employer to prove the guilt of the workman. Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, Hence this appeal. It was contended by the management-respondent that the principle C incorporated under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act though not specifically made applicable yet it would be deemed to be applicable in a case under the Industrial Dispute Act for the purpose of making a reference under Section 10 thereof. It was contended by the workman that the principles --.. incorporated under Article 137 cannot be held to be applicable under the Act for the purposes of making a reference of the dispute to the labour court and D that the provision of the Act was a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of the workmen employed in various industries. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation E Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workmen only on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally F questioned on the ground of delay. The tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workmen till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead offull back wages. G Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Gopa/ Bhiva & Ors., [1964] 3 SCR 709; Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Ors., [1970) 1 SCR 51; Sha Mulchand &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.