LexKULDEEP SINGH versus G.M., INSTRUMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES CENTRE & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 873 KULDEEP SINGH v. G.M., INSTRUMENT DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITIES CENTRE & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 10231 of 2010) A , DECEMBER 03, 2010 B. [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10 - Reference of disputes to Board, Courts or Tribunals - Termination of C workman - Several representations made by workman to various authorities - Reference of disputes to Labour Court by State Government - Labour Court held that the services of the workman was terminated without complying with s.25F and, therefore, the termination order was illegal, null and void D . but ultimately dismissed the claim of the workman on the ground of delay of five and a half years in making reference - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal held: There is no prescribed time limit for reference of industrial dispute uls. 10 - In view of the particulars furnished as also the explanation · E offered by the workman, the delay was not so culpable as to... ' disentitle him any relief - Workman directed to be reinstated with consequential service benefits but without back wages - · Delayllaches. The respondent-management terminated the services F of the appellant-workman. The appellant made several representatives to various authorities. Thereafter, the State Government referred the dispute between the appellant and the respondent to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the respondent-management is an G industry within the meaning of s. 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; that the appellant had rendered the ' duties for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months · but the management terminated his services without 873 H .. 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R. A complying with the provisions of s. 25F of the Act and, thus, was illegal null and void and deserves to be set aside. However, the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground of delay of five and a half years in making the reference. The High Court dismissed s the writ petition filed by the appellant for reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1.1. It is clear that the Labour Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the termination of the appellant-workman Is Illegal, null and void and deserves to be set aside. This finding became final 1 since the Management did not D question the same by way of writ petition. Undoubtedly, the Management has to follow the provisions of the Act while effecting termination, in fact, which was accepted by the Labour Court and the Management did not challenge the same before any forum. [Paras 10 and 20] E [882-B; 889-B] .1.2. By making various representations from the day when the services of the appellant were terminated and till his last representation dated 16.07.1996 to the Manager, the workman has proved that he was agitating his F termination one way or other with all the authorities concerned. The particulars furnished clearly show that the appellant/workman was fighting for his cause before the Management as well as with the State Government including the Chief Secretary and the Minister of the G concerned Department. Ultimately, the State Government made a reference on 22.11.1999 to the Labour Court for adjudication. [Para 19] [888-E-F] 1.3. There is no prescribed time limit for the H appropriate Government to exercise its powers under / KULDEEP SINGH v. G.M., INST. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 875 AND FACILITIES CENTRE I Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is more A I so in view of the language used, namely, if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the appropriate government 'at any time' refer the dispute to a Board or Court for enquiry. The reference sought for by the workman cannotbe said to be delayed or suffering from s . a1 lapse when law does not prescribe 1any period of limitation for raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act. The real test for making a reference is whether at the time of ~he reference, dispute exists or not and when It is made, it is presumed that the State Government is . c satisfied with the ingredients of the provision, thus, the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference. It is not open to the Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and once it is fou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.