DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB AND ANR. versus GURMIT SINGH

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 17-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
GURMIT SINGH 
APRIL 17, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGHPANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
s.10--Reference to Lribour Court-Labour Court, without deciding 
pleas of non-applicability of the Act and 9 years delay in making the claim, 
directing reinstatement of workman-High Court declining to interfere-
Held, Labour Court having not adjudicated on the jurisdictional aspect and 
delay, orders of Labour Court and High Court set aside-Matter remitted to D 
Labour Court for adjudication on these aspects-Jurisdiction of Labour 
Court-Delay/Laches. 
Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7637/2004 was engaged as Chowkidar 
by the appellants on 1.6.1985 on monthly wages of Rs. 400/-. His services 
were terminated on 25.8.1986. On reference under s.10(4) of the Industrial E 
Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court held that the workman had worked for 
more than 240 days and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. 
The writ petition of the employers having been dismissed by the High Court, 
they filed the appeal. Civil Appeal nos. 6766/2004 and 2608/2004 were also 
filed on similar facts. 
It was contended for the appellants that both the Labour Court and the 
High Court failed to decide the please of non-applicability of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, and 9 years delay in making the claim. 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to Labour Court, the 
F 
~rt 
G 
HELD: In the instant case apart from the fact that the long delay aspect 
has not been considered by the Labour Court, it is also did not decide the 
jurisdictional fact about the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
261 
H 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A That being so, the order of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court, 
cannot be sustained and stands quashed. The Labour court would adjudicate 
on these aspects. (Paras 6 and 8) (264-G-H; 265-B) 
National Engineering Industries Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 
[2000) l SCC 371 and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board 
B and Ors., [2001) 6 sec 222, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7637 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11. I 1.2002 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 17879 of2002. 
c 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6766/2004 & 2608/2004. 
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katya!, T.P. Mishra and Arun K. 
D Sinha for the Appellants. 
Suresh Kumari, Dinesh Ve1ma and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
Dr. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment 
of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the 
writ petitions filed by the present appellants. Challenge in the writ petitions 
was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (in 
short the 'Labour Court'). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
F 
2. The dispute in three appeals being common, factual position in Civil 
Appeal No. 7637 of 2004 is noted. 
Civil Appeal No.763712004 
3. Reference was made to the Labour Court under Section 10(1 )( c) of the 
G Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'ID Act') of the following purported 
dispute: 
"Whether termination of services of Gurmit Singh-Workman is justified 
and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?" 
H The case of the workman was that he joined the present appellants as 
DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH [PASAYA T, J.] 
263 
~ 
Chowkidar and worked therein from 1.6.1985 to 24.8.1986. His services were A 
terminated on 25.8.1986 by the Management without service of any notice, 
holding of any enquiry or payment of any compensation. He was getting 
Rs.400/-p.m. at that time as wages. He is covered under the Industrial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short the 'Standing Orders Act'). 
The Management d.id not comply with the principles of natural justice while B 
terminating his services. The notice of reference was given to the present 
appellants. It was stated in the written statement inter alia that the claimant 
... ___... 
was working as Chowkidar on daily wages. His services endt:d with the end 
of each working day. The claim of the claimant that he had worked from 
1.6.1986 to 24.8.1986 is not correct. The services of the claimant were dispensed 
with as he was surplus. No notice or enquiry or compensation wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.