Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by an employer challenging the order of Reference made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring the dispute of termination of workmen to the Labour Court. The employer had terminated the services of the workmen in June 2001 due to closure of operations. Some workers challenged the termination before the Industrial Court under the MRTU and PULP Act and later settled. In 2015, when the employer sought to transfer the plant land, the remaining workmen raised a demand regarding their 2001 termination. The conciliation failed, and the Government referred the dispute in 2016. The employer argued that the dispute was raised after 14 years, was stale, and no industrial dispute existed at the time of reference. The Court held that the phrase 'at any time' in Section 10(1) indicates no limitation period, but the Government must form an opinion that a dispute exists. However, mere delay does not automatically extinguish the dispute; the workmen may provide a satisfactory explanation. The Court found that the employer's contentions regarding delay, acquiescence, and the bar under Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act could be raised before the Labour Court, which is the appropriate forum to adjudicate these issues. The Court refused to quash the reference at the threshold, as the Government had formed an opinion based on the failure report and the workmen's explanation. The petitions were dismissed, and the Labour Court was directed to proceed with the references expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reference of Dispute - Condition Precedent - Section 10(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The appropriate Government must form an opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended before making a reference; the phrase 'at any time' indicates no limitation period, but the Government must ascertain whether the dispute still exists and is not stale. The adequacy of material for forming such opinion is not subject to judicial review. (Paras 12-14)
B) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Effect on Existence of Dispute - Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Mere delay in raising a dispute does not automatically extinguish the industrial dispute; the worker may provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the dispute may still exist. The policy against stale claims is not an absolute bar, and each case must be decided on its own facts. (Paras 14-15)
C) Industrial Law - Reference Order - Challenge at Preliminary Stage - Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The High Court should not quash a reference order at the threshold unless it is patently without jurisdiction or based on no material; all contentions including delay and acquiescence can be raised before the Labour Court, which is the appropriate forum to adjudicate such issues. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of Reference made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring a dispute raised after 14 years of termination, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the industrial dispute did not exist due to delay and laches.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the order of Reference made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour on 18 November 2016. The Court held that the appropriate Government had formed an opinion on the existence of the industrial dispute based on the conciliation failure report, and the adequacy of material is not justiciable. The Court refused to quash the reference at the threshold, directing that all contentions of the Petitioner, including delay, acquiescence, and the bar under Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act, be raised before the Labour Court. The Labour Court was directed to proceed with the references expeditiously.
Law Points
- Existence of industrial dispute is condition precedent for reference under Section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- 'at any time' indicates no limitation period
- delay does not automatically extinguish dispute
- appropriate government must form opinion but adequacy of material not justiciable
- stale claims not encouraged unless satisfactory explanation
- worker can raise dispute even after long delay if explanation exists
- Section 2-A(3) time limit applies only to individual applications not to references under Section 10
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 188
Writ Petition No. 6241 of 2017 and connected matters
Kiran Bapat (Senior Advocate for Petitioners), Kaustubh Gidh (for Respondents-workers), Additional/Assistant Government Pleader (for State)
M/s. Bhor Industries Ltd. Ors.
Vitthal Sahebrao Kumbhar Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the order of Reference made by the Additional Commissioner of Labour under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring the dispute of termination of workmen to the Labour Court.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner (employer) sought quashing of the order of Reference dated 18 November 2016 made by Respondent No. 3 (Additional Commissioner of Labour) referring the industrial dispute to the Labour Court.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner contended that the dispute was raised after 14 years of termination, was stale, and no industrial dispute existed at the time of reference; also that the appropriate Government did not record its satisfaction regarding existence of dispute.
Previous Decisions
Some workers (other than Respondents) had earlier challenged the termination before the Industrial Court under MRTU and PULP Act, which allowed their complaints on 1 November 2002, and later settled with the Petitioner.
Issues
Whether the order of Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the industrial dispute did not exist due to delay of 14 years in raising the dispute.
Whether the appropriate Government must record its satisfaction regarding existence of industrial dispute as a condition precedent for making a reference.
Whether the bar under Section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act applies to the reference when some workers had earlier approached the Industrial Court under that Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Delay of 14 years in raising dispute; dispute did not exist at time of reference; appropriate Government did not record satisfaction; workers acquiesced to termination; Section 2-A(3) indicates legislative intent for speedy references; some workers had earlier approached under MRTU and PULP Act, bar under Section 59 applies.
Respondent-Workmen: No limitation period under Section 10; mere delay does not extinguish dispute; facts such as notice and transfer of land show dispute existed; all contentions can be raised before Labour Court; quashing would foreclose rights without hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The appropriate Government's satisfaction as to the existence of an industrial dispute is a condition precedent for a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The phrase 'at any time' indicates no limitation period, but the Government must ascertain whether the dispute still exists and is not stale. However, mere delay does not automatically extinguish the dispute; the worker may provide a satisfactory explanation. The adequacy or sufficiency of material on which the opinion is formed is beyond judicial scrutiny. The High Court should not quash a reference at the threshold unless it is patently without jurisdiction or based on no material; all contentions including delay can be raised before the Labour Court.
Judgment Excerpts
The satisfaction of the appropriate Government as to the existence of an industrial dispute is a condition precedent to the order of Reference.
The words 'at any time' used in section 10 of the Act of 1947 show that there is no period of limitation in making an order of Reference.
At the same time, the appropriate Government has to ascertain whether the dispute still exists and has not become a stale claim.
The order of Reference cannot be made mechanically without forming an opinion.
The policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Notwithstanding the fact that the law of limitation does not apply, even if a considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, the industrial dispute may not cease to exist.
Procedural History
The Petitioner terminated the services of Respondents in June 2001. Some workers filed complaints under MRTU and PULP Act before the Industrial Court, which were allowed on 1 November 2002, and later settled. In 2015, the Petitioner applied for NOC to transfer land; Respondents raised demand on 29 May 2015. Petitioner replied on 23 June 2015. Conciliation failed on 30 August 2016. On 18 November 2016, the Additional Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute to Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the reference order. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petitions on 23 July 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10, Section 12, Section 2-A
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 59, Schedule IV Items 9 and 10
