PRABHAKAR versus JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 07-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 890 
PRABHAKAR 
V. 
JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT &ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27080 of 2015) 
SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10, 2(k) - Industrial 
c Dispute -
Delay in raising - Power of appropriate 
Government to make a reference of the dispute - On facts, 
termination of services of petitioner-worker, however industrial 
dispute raised after 14 years - Award by Labour Court 
directing reinstatement of petitioner in service without back 
D wages and other benefits - Writ petition by Management 
dismissed by Single Judge of the High Court- However, writ 
appeal by Management allowed by Division Bench of the 
High Court- Correctness of- Held: High Court was correct 
holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after 
E fourteen years of termination without any justifiable 
explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had no 
jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing 
dispute - Although there is no limitation prescribed under 
the Act for making a reference u/s. 10(1), yet it is for the 
F 'appropriate Government' to consider whether it is expedient 
or not to make the reference - Words 'at any time' used ins. 
10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of 
reference - However, very stale claims should not be 
generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there 
G is satisfactory explanation for delay since it is risky to 
industrial peace. 
H 
Doctrines- Doctrine of /aches and delays and doctrine 
of acquiescence - Formulation of - Explained. 
890 
PRABHAKAR v. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE 
891 
· DEPARTMENT 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 High Court correctly decided the issue 
holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. 
after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable 
explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had s 
no jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-
existing dispute. [Para 43] [923-H'; 924-A] 
1.2 An industrial dispute has to be referred by the 
appropriate Government for adjudication and the c 
workman cannot approach the Labour Court or 
Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which 
are covered by Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
.Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those 
cases where the appropriate Government forms an o 
opinion that 'any Industrial dispute exists or is 
apprehended'. The words 'industrial dispute exists' are 
of paramount importance unless there is an existence 
of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended 
or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near E 
future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or 
apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non 
for making the reference .. No doubt, at the time of taking 
a decision whether a reference is to be made· or not, the 
appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of F 
the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative 
function. At the same time, on the basis of material on 
record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial 
dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is 
necessary. Such existence/apprehension of. industrial G 
dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though 
it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material 
on record. Dispute or difference arises when one party 
make a demand and other party rejects the same. Before H 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]9 S.C.R. 
A raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a 
necessary pre-condition. In such a scenario, if the 
services of a workman are terminated and he does not 
make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging 
wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within 
B reasonable time and raises the same after considerable 
lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial 
dispute still exists. Since there is no period of limitation, 
it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even 
belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a long 
C period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute 
still exists? Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of 
limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the 
workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this. 
0 
purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable 
period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such 
delay has not resulted in

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