ASSISTANT ENGINEER, C.A.D. KOTA versus DHAN KUNWAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 05-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, C.A.D. KOTA 
V. 
DHAN KUNWAR 
JULY 5, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section JO-Reference-Claim of 
C reinstatement-Entitlement when reference made to lab.1ur Court 8 years 
after termination-Held: Delay of 8 years would disentitle the workman of 
any relief-Although law does not prescribe any time limit for reference of 
dispute, it does not mean that dispute can be raised at any time and without 
regard to the delay and reasons thereof 
D 
E 
The respondent was appointed on temporary basis. His services were 
terminated. After about 8 years termination was challenged by the 
workman. Subsequently., reference was made to the Labour Court under 
Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court directed 
payment of 30% back wages along with direction for reinstatement. 
High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that merely 
because the claim was r:aised after about 8 years, it did not disentitle the 
workman to get relief. 
In appeal to this Court, the appeJlant contended that highly belated 
F claim should not have b1~en entertained by the Labour Court, particularly 
when the concerned s1~ction of the Irrigation Department has been 
abolished and there was no post for reinstating the respondent-workman. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. No formula of universal application can be laid down so 
far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned. It would depend on facts 
of each individual case. [276-G-HJ 
2. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate 
274 
ASSIST ANT ENGINEER, C.A.D. KOTA v. DHAN KUNWAR[PASAYAT,J.] 
275 
Government to exercise its powers under Section IO of the Act. It is not A 
that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters 
which had since settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a 
rational manner. 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 B 
the matter has become final, reference cannot be made under Section IO 
of the Act. 1277-A-DI 
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., (20001 2 SCC 
455 and S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karna/aka, 
120031 4 sec 27, relied on. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6473 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2004 of the High Court of 
Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 240/2003 in S.B.C.W.P. 
No, 5774/1999. 
Naveen Kumar Singh and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
Ajay Choudhary for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur 
Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-State questioning 
correctness of the judgment rendered by a .learned Single Judge. 
D 
E 
A brief reference to the factual aspects as highlighted by the appellant F 
would suffice: 
The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') was appointed 
on LL1978 as work-charged employee on temporary basis. Subsequently, 
she was declared quasi-permanent in service and worked up to 30,5,1983, G 
Appellant terminated her service after paying one month's salary in terms of 
Rule 26 of Rajasthan Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads) 
including Gardens, Irrigation, Water-Works and Ayurvedic Departments, 
Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (in short the 'Rules'). After 
about eight years dispute was raised by the respondent-workman. Initially no 
reference was made by the State Government. Subsequently, a reference was H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A made to the Labour Court, Kota, Rajasthan, under Section 10(1) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). The reference was to the 
effect as to whether the employer was justified in retrenching the respondent. 
Several points were urged by the present appellant questioning legality of the 
reference. Primary stand re lated to the closure of the section of the Irrigation 
B Department where the respondent was working. It was emphasized that the 
reference was sought for after a very long period of time i.e. about eight 
years. On both counts, it was submitted, that reference has to be answered 
against the workman and in fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.