THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. versus K.P. MADHAVANKUTTY AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 28-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. 
A 
v. 
K.P. MADHAVANKUTTY AND ORS. 
JANUARY 28, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.J 
B 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Ac~ 1947-Sections 10; 12(4)-Reference of a stale 
disput~ -Rationality of-Respondent dismissed from service of the appellant C 
Bank w.e.f 11/811971-After several years, respondent demanding his 
reinstatement contending that he was discriminated as two other employees 
of the Bank under similar situation were reinstated in the service of the 
Bank-Central Govt. making a reference under Section JO-Validity of-Held, 
Central Govt. lacked power to make reference both on the ground of delay in 
invoking the power under Section 10 and there being no industrial dispute D 
existing or even apprehended at the time of reference-Though no time limit 
is prescribed for the exercise of power under Section 10 by the appropriate 
government, such power cannot be exercised at any point of time to revive 
matter which had since been settled or to refer stale disputes-Power of 
reference is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner and not in 
E 
a mechanical fashion. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Power of the High Court, 
under-Reference made under Section JO of the Industrial Disputes 
Act-Judicial Revie--Scope of-Held, reference made under Section 10 of 
the Act which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or F 
travels outside it, is subject to judicial review limited though it might be-High 
Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider 
the question of very jurisdiction of the Labour Court when there is allegation 
of non-existence of any industrial dispute. 
The respondent was working as a Clerk with the appellant Bank G 
having put in 10 years of service when disciplinary proceedings were 
initiated against him for having misappropriated a sum of Rs. 1,185 and 
falsifying the books of the Bank. After conclusion of the inquiry, he mis 
served with a memo dated 13.10.1972 to show-cause as to why punishment 
of dismissal from service be not awarded to him in the light of the grave H 
459 
460 
SUPREME COL:RT REPORTS 
[2000] 1 S.C.R. 
A misconduct proved against him. Respondent admitted his guilt and prayed 
for mercy. However, considering the circumstances of the case he was 
dismissed from the service of the appellant Bank w.e.f. 11.8.1972. There-
after the respondent filed ap)leal to the Board of Directors of the Bank 
wherein he again admitted his guilt and expressed unconditional regret. 
B His appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.1.1973. The respondent was 
thus dismissed from the service and got whatever benefits that were due 
to him under the rules of the Bank. 
After a period of About 7 years, respondent served a notice on the 
appellant Hank on 17.1.1980 demanding his reinstatement contending that 
C he was discriminated as two other employees of the Bank under similar 
situation were reinstated in th•~ service of the Bank. In the meanwhile, the 
respondent filed an application before the State Govt. on 24.5.1979 under 
Section 10 of the Industrial Dis)lutes Act which was rejected on the ground 
that appropriate Govt. in relation to the Bank was the Central Govt. 
D Thereafter, the respondent moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner of 
the Central Govt. for relief, who by order dated 11.3.1981 held that there 
was no scope for formal proceedings under the Act since the matter was 
one which arose way back in 1972. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ 
petition in the High Court whe1reby the High Court directed the Assistant 
Labour Commissioner to send his report under Section 12(4) of the Act 
E to the Central Govt. In pursuance thereto, the Assistant Labour Commis-
sioner sent his report to the Central Govt. for consideration. Central Govt. 
declined to make any referenice under Section 10 of the Act and the 
respondent again tiled a writ petition in the High Court. A single Judge of 
the High Court by its order dated 14.11.1983 directed the Central Govt. to 
F re- examine the matter which was upheld by the Appellate Bench in writ 
appeal. Thereupon, the Central Govt. made a reference. Aggrieved, the 
appellant Bank challenged the ~!ference successfully before a Single Judge. 
However, the validity of the reference was upheld by the Division Bench in 
appeal by the re~pondent. Hence, the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Law does not prescribe any time limit 

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