MANAGEMENT OF MIS. INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. versus PRAHLAD SINGH

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 03-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANAGEMENT OF MIS. INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
PRAHLAD SINGH 
NOVEMBER 3, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industries Disputes Act, 1947: 
Termination of service-Standing Orders-Provided for loss of lien on 
appointment in case of over stayal of leave-Services of workman terminated 
as he did not resume duty after expiry of leave-No satisfactory explanation 
given-Held: Industrial Tribunal rightly upheld the termination of service in 
the light of the standing orders which is neither untenable nor perverse. 
The respondent-workman did not resume duty after expiry of leave 
granted to him. The appellant-company terminated the services of the 
respondent workman under the provisions of the company's standing orders 
lO(t) and (h). 
B 
c 
D 
The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the E 
Industrial Tribunal after a period of 13 years. The Tribunal held that the 
respondent-workman lost his lien on the appointment in view of Orders lO(f) 
and (h) of the Company's Standing Orders. The Tribunal also held that the 
dispute after a period of about 13 years from the date of termination was too 
stale to grant relief. The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging F 
the aforesaid award. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Whether relief can be declined on the ground of delay and 
laches, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case G 
claim was made almost after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or 
justifying ground and there was nothing on record to explain this delay as 
held by the Tribunal. When the respondent did not make claim for 13 years 
without any justification and on merits also he had no case, the Tribunal did 
not rightly grant him any relief. Even otherwise the findings of facts recorded 
357 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A by the Tribunal in the light of Orders lO(t) and (h) of the Company's Standing 
Orders cannot be said to be untenable or perverse. [361-G-H) 
B 
Uptron India Ltd. v. Shamim Bhan, AIR (1998) SC 1681 and Delhi 
Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR (1991) SC 101, 
held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6175 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1 l. 99 of the Patna High Court 
C in L.P.A. No. 205of1999. 
D 
Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant. 
P.S. Mishra, Mohan Pandey, Ali Ahmed, Tanveer Ahmed and Ms. Kirti 
Sinha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. Leave granted. 
In this appeal the appellant is assailing the order made on 29.5.1999 by . 
E the learned single Judge of the High Court in CWJC No. 1458of1997(R) as 
well as the order of the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the same. 
At the instance of sponsoring union a dispute was referred for 
adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 1, Dhanbad 
(for short 'Tribunal'). The dispute was "whether the management of M/s. 
F IISCO Ltd., Chasnalla Colliery, P.O. Chasnalla, Distt. Dhanbad was justified in 
terminating the services of Shri Prahlad Singh, Magazine Clerk vide their letter 
No. 28 (IV)/2008 dated 8. l 0.1974. Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned 
is entitled." 
G 
The Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it and taking 
into consideration the submissions made, recorded findings that the 
respondent-workman lost his lien on the appointment in view of the orders 
I O(f) and (h) of the Standing Orders having regard to the facts of the case 
either admitted or found established. The Tribunal based on records also toak 
note of the fact that the claim of the respondent-workman in raising the 
H dispute after a period of about l 3 years from the date of termination was too 
MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD 1•. PRAHLADSINGH (PATIL, J.) 359 
stale to grant any relief. In this view the Tribunal held that order of termination A 
of services of the respondent was justified and he was not entitled to any 
relief. It is this award which was assailed by the respondent before the learned 
single Judge of the High Court in the writ petition. The writ petition was 
allowed quashing the award of the Tribunal, directing the appellant to reinstate 
the respondent in service with full back wages from the date when the dispute 
was referred by the appropriate Government to the Tribunal for adjudication. B 
The appel

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