SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH, BIJNOR versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 08-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

/
)-
-1.J
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH, BIJNOR
A
v.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 8. 2006
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]
Laches-Industrial dispute-Award by Industrial Tribunal-Original
application thereaginst before Central Administrative Tribunal-Disposal c
thereof as not maintainable-Dismissal of writ application by High Court
being highly belated-On appeal, held: Jn the facts of the case writ application
was not belated-Matter remitted to High Court for adjudication on merit-
Industrial disputes Act, 1947.
In an industrial dispute, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- D
:I
cum-Labour Court passed an award in favour of workmen in 1992.
Appellant-Department filed Original Application before Central
,.
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the same was admitted. CAT disposed
of the matter in 1997 holding that in view of the judgment in L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., JT (1997) 3 SC 589, the proceedings E
before it were not maintainable. Department filed Writ Application in 1998
before High Court, and the same was dismissed on the ground of laches,
holding that it was highly belated. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for
decision on merits, the Court
F
_J,
HELD: A perusal of the factual scenario that Original application
was filed before Central Administrative Tribunal against the award and
the same was disposed of as not maintainable, clearly indicates that the
writ petition was not belated. [137-C)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3347 of2000.
-I
From the Judgment and Order 30.4.1998 of the Allahabad High Court
) "·
in C.M.W.P. No. 15161/1998.
H
135
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2006] 2 S.C.R.
A
S. Radhakrishnan, Ms. Sunita Sharma, V.K. Verma and Arvind Kumar
Sharma with him of the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed
B by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition
. filed by the appellant on the ground that an award passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (in short the
'Tribunal') was being assailed belatedly and the writ petition was dismissed
on the ground of !aches.
c
D
E
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the
High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not take note of the factual background
and on the erroneous assumptions that an award of the Tribunal made in
1992 was being belatedly challenged, the writ petition was dismissed. He
referred to several factual details which we shall deal with infra.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.
The order of the High Court reads as follows:
"The petitioner has challenged award of 1992. The petition is
highly belated and is dismissed on .the ground of !aches."
Factual position which is almost undisputed is that some casual labourers
raised a dispute before the Tribunal. The appellant took the stand that the
concerned labourers who "'.ere casual workers had deliberately remained absent
from duty for more than six months. Those six persons were engaged on
F daily wages basis in the Telecommunication Department under the SDO,
Bijnor. When they reported back after their voluntary absence they were not
•
given any benefit for the past service and it was decided to treat them to have
l
joined w.e.f. 7.5.1985. The Tribunal by its award dated 17.3.1992 came to
hold that there was, in fact, termination, and there was no compliance with
G requirements of Section 25-F of"the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and,
therefore, the action of the Department was illegal and unjustified. According
to the Tribunal they were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and
consequential benefits. The Department filed an Original Application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short 'CAT'). The
H Original Applicatior. was admitted on 5.5.1993 and stay on the direction for
the payment of back wages was granted. Subsequently, it was brought to the
t
)
\
SUB-01\'ISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH. BIJNOR •·. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GO\T [PASAYAT J.)
j J 7
notice of the CAT that in view of the decision of this Court in l. Chandra A
Kumar v. The Union of India & Ors., JT (1997) 3 SC 589) the proceedings
before th

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