LexSAPAN KUMAR PANDIT versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAPAN KUMAR PANDIT A v. -< U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. JULY 24, 200 I [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B Labour Laws : ' Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. c Section 4K-Industrial Dispute-Reference of dispute for adjudication- Power of Government-Sc9pe of-Held, government has power to refer disputes for adjudication so long as industrial dispute exists on the date of ... reference-Power not circumscribed by lapse of time since inception of dispute so long as dispute exists-Concilia.tion proceedings revived after 15 years since inception of dispute-Reference of dispute by Government-Challenged D on the ground of delay-Dispute remained alive though not galvanized for justified reasons-Held, under the facts reference of dispute not liable to be -!I quashed. .. Words & Phrases- 'At any time '-Meaning of in the context of the U.P. E Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 4K. Appellant alongwith 10 other workmen was retrenched by the respondent-Board. Appellant raised an industrial dispute that termination of his services was illegal. The union on behalf of the other 10 workmen also raised an industrial dispute and State Government referred the matter to F "' Industrial Tribunal. Respondent gave assurance to appellant that if the 10 •. workmen succeeded before Labour Court, then the same benefit would be extended to appellant. High Court ultimately held that retrenchment of the 10 workmen was bad and directed their reinstatement which was confirmed by dismissal of special leave petition of respondent. When appellant found 0 that same benefit was not being extended to him despite persistent requests to the Board, he revived conciliation proceedings. State Government made , reference for adjudication of dispute as per Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Respondent-Board filed writ petition challenging reference 'i which was allowed by the High Court. High Court held that appellant remained silent for more than 15 years and delay was so inordinate that dispute had H 1081 1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (200 I] 3 S.C.R. A ceased to exist 6y efflux of time and hence no reference should have been made. Aggrieved by the judgment of High Court, appellant workman has fded the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. The words "at any time' as used in Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are primafacie indicator to a period without boundary. But such an interpretation making the power unending would be pedantic. There is inherent evidence in the sub-section itself to indicate that the time has some circumscription. The words "where the Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended" have to be read in C conjunction with the words "at any time". They are, in a way, complimentary to each other. The Government's power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be done only · so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by the enduring expression "at any time" terminates with the eclipse of the industrial D dispute. It, therefore, means that if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of years which ·elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to determine whether the delay would have extinguished the power of the Government to make the reference. Hence the real test is the existence of industrial dispute on the date of reference for adjudication. The Government can exercise the E power whatever be the range of the period which lapsed since the inception of the dispute. [1086-B-C-D-E-FJ 1.2. If the government decides to make the reference there is a presumption that in the opinion of the government there ex.isted such a dispute. In considering the factual position whether the dispute did exist on F the date of reference the Government could take into account factors, inter alia, such as· the subsistence of conciliation proceedings. It is of no consequence that conciliation proceedings were commenced after a long time. But such conciliation proceedings are evidence of the existence of the industrial dispute. It is an admitted fact that on the date of reference in this G case the conciliation proceedings were not concluded. It so, it cannot be said that the dispute did not exist on that day. (1086-G-H; 1087-A-B] Mis. West
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.