U.P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BABU RAM

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 04-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
BABU RAM 
JULY 4, 2006 
B 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section IO-Reference made to Labour 
C Court 15 years after termination-Labour Court set aside termination-High 
court affirmed same-Challenged by employer on the ground that no 
explanation offered for belated claim-Held: Workman had not produced any 
evidence to show that he had raised dispute within reasonable time or that he 
was not responsible for delayed reference-Neither Labour Court nor High 
D Court noted the factual position and merely based their conclusion on 
surmises--Matter remitted to High Court for ji-esh consideration-UP. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The respondent-workman was appointed on temporary basis. In 
1983, his services were terminated. In 1998, Labour Commissioner 
E referred the dispute for adjudication. Labour Court held that the 
termination of respondent was illegal. Employer filed Writ Petition before 
High Court on the ground that respondent has not offered any explanation 
for claim raised after 15 years. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
Court 
HELD:l.1. No formula of universal application can be laid down, 
so far as delay in seeking th1~ reference is concerned. It would depend on 
G facts of each individual case. 1214-F] 
H 
1.2. The workman has not placed any material to show that it had 
raised dispute within a reasonable time, and/or that he was not responsible 
for delayed decision if any in the conciliation proceedings. It was for him 
212 
U.P. STATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONv. BABURAM[PASAYAT,J.] 
213 
to show that the dispute was raised within a reasonable time and that he A 
was not responsible for any delay. The High Court, on a hypothetical basis 
had assumed that the dispute might have been raised promptly but delayed 
by the State Government and he cannot be penalized for delay in finalizing 
the conciliation proceedings and the reference. Neither the Labour Court 
nor the High Court had even noted the factual position. The conclusion B 
was based on surmises and conjectures. [216-F-H] 
Nedungadi Bank ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., [2000] 2 SCC 
455; SM Ni/ajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, [2003) 
4 SCC 27 and Employers in relation to the Management of Sudamdih Collie1y 
of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Their Workmen Represented by Rashtriya C 
Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, (2006) I Supreme 282, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2103 of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.2003 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 26948/2003. 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. 
Dhiraj K: Agrawal, Asha Taneja and Mridula Ray Bharadwaj for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed 
by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ 
petition filed by the appellant. 
The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows: 
The respondent was appointed on purely temporary basis in the year 
1980 to meet the urgent needs during the Khumbh Festival. It was clearly 
mentioned in the appointment letter that service of the respondent, as well as 
D 
E 
F 
the similar situated persons, was purely of temporary nature and can be G 
terminated at any time without prior intimation. The respondent was engaged 
from time to time to meet the need for specific time bound work. As there 
was no further need for engaging the respondent and others, their services 
were terminated by order dated 19.9.1983. By order dated 29.8.1998 the 
Deputy Labour Commissioner referred following dispute for adjudication 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A under U,P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'): 
B 
c 
"Whether termination of service/retrenchment of workman Sh. 
Baburam, S/o Nathhu Singh, Chawkidar by his employers w.e.f. 
19.09.1983 is legal and/or valid? If not, then to what relief/ 
compensation the concerned workman is entitled?" 
By order dated 11.11 .2002 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 
Allahabad, Rampur held that the termination/retrenchment of the respondent 
w.e.f. 19.9.1983 was illegal and invalid. Consequently the Labour Court 
directed that respondent shouldi be reinstated with continuity of service and 
be pai

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