KARAN SINGH versus M/S EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HARYANA STATE MARKETING BOARD

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 28-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
KARAN SINGH 
V. 
MIS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HARY ANA STATE MARKETING 
BOARD 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss. 10(1) and 25F-Delayed 
raising of dispute by the workman-Challenging his termination as 
violative of s. 25F-Reference of Dispute-Claim rejected on the sole 
ground of delay despite holding that termination was violative of s. 
B 
c 
25 F-By Labour as well as High Court-On appeal, held: Reference D 
wrongly invalidated on the sole ground of delay-:-As the Reference was 
made by the Government and the Labour Court held that termination 
was violative ofs. 25F-The remedy available to the employer was to 
challenge the Reference itself by way of Writ Petition-In view of long 
lapse of time and in absence of explanation for delay, employer directed E 
to pay Rs. 60, 000 as full and final settlement. 
Delay-Jn seeking reference to Industrial Tribunal-
Determination of-Held: Would depend on the facts of each case. 
Appellant-workman, made a claim after6 years of termination of F 
his service by the respondent-Board, on the ground thatthe termination 
was in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. State 
Government made the reference to LabourCourt'u/s 10(1) of the Act 
Labour Court, though held thatthetennination was in violation of Section 
25F, answered the reference in favour of the employer-Board on the G 
ground that the claim was highly belated. The Writ Petition thereagainst 
was also dismissed confirming the order of Labour Court. 
In appeal to this Court the question for consideration was whether 
425 
H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I 0 S.C.R. 
A the reference of the workman could be rejected on the sole ground of 
delay when Government itself made reference for adjudication of the 
dispute. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 gets its jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute 
only upon a reference by the appropriate Government The Industrial 
Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. If the 
employer says that the workman has made a stale claim then the 
c employer must challenge the reference by way of Writ petition and say 
that since the claim is belated, -there was no industrial dispute. 
[Para 9) (429-D-E} 
Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd v. The Workers 
D and Ors., AIR (1963) SC 569 and National Engineering Industries Ltd 
v. State ofRajasthan and Ors., (2000) 1SCC371, referred to. 
2. In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the 
employer has violated Section 25F. If so, the order of termination is bad 
E 
in law. It has to be struck down. In the present case, it has been struck 
down. However, the Tribunal had refused to grant any relief on the 
ground of delay. The Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the 
reference, particularly when it has found that the order of termination 
violates Section 25F of the Act. [Para 9) (429-F] 
F 
3. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula-
of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on facts of 
each individual case. [Para 11] (430-D l 
4. In the background of the present case normally the award of 
G -the Labour Court and the High Court would have been set aside. But 
because oflong passage of time, it would be inappropriate, particularly 
when appellant has not even offered any semblance of explanation for 
the delay. Accordingly it is directed that the respondent-Board shall pay 
a sum of Rs.60,000/- in full and final settlement of appellant's 
H en!itlements. [Paras 15and16) [432-F-G] 
~ 
~ 
.... 
:>--
( r--
/ 
KARAN SINGH v. MIS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 
427 
HARYANASTATEMARKETING BOARD [PASAYAT, J.] 
Nedungadi Bank Ltd v. KP. Madhavankutty and Ors., (2000] 2 SCC A 
455; S.M Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, 
(2003] 4 SCC 27; Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Mis Bharat 
Coking Coal Ltd v. Their Workmen represented by Rashtriya Collie1y 
Mazdoor Sangh, (2006) 1 Supreme 282 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar 
Dam and Anr. v. Sham Lal, (2006] 9 SCC 124, relied on. 
B 
Sapan Kumar Panditv. UP. State Electricity Board and Ors .. [2001] 
6 sec 222, ref erred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4561 of 
2007. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 5442/2005. 
Jasbir Singh

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