Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, officers of the State Government's Public Works Department, challenged an award dated 05.05.2004 passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur in Reference I.D.A. No. 29/1993. The Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the respondent employee with continuity of service and 50% back wages from 30.01.1987 till 21.12.2000 and thereafter from 04.05.2003 till actual reinstatement. The respondent had worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987 but approached the conciliation machinery after almost 5 years, leading to a reference in 1993. The petitioners argued that this delay was fatal and that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction as the Employment Guarantee Scheme was not an 'industry'. They also contended that the respondent did not prosecute the matter diligently, as it was adjourned for almost 5 years due to his absence. The respondent's counsel argued that the respondent kept approaching the employer for work and could not approach the conciliation authority earlier, and that he had no income to appear before the Labour Court. The High Court held that the delay in raising the dispute was fatal to the claim for back wages, and the Labour Court erred in awarding any back wages. However, since the respondent had already been reinstated pursuant to an interim order of the High Court, the reinstatement was not disturbed. The petition was partly allowed, setting aside the award of back wages but confirming the reinstatement.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Back Wages - Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The respondent employee worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987 but approached the conciliation machinery after almost 5 years, resulting in a reference in 1993. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. The High Court held that the delay in raising the dispute is fatal to the claim for back wages, and the Labour Court erred in awarding any back wages. The employee's explanation for delay was not supported by evidence. (Paras 2-4)
B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Delay in Prosecuting Reference - Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The matter was adjourned for almost 5 years due to the absence of the respondent employee. The High Court held that the delay in prosecuting the reference also disentitles the employee to back wages. However, since the employee had already been reinstated pursuant to an interim order, the reinstatement was not disturbed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in granting reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages to the respondent employee despite the delay of almost 5 years in approaching the conciliation machinery and the delay in prosecuting the reference.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition. The award of back wages was set aside, but the reinstatement of the respondent was not disturbed as it had already been effected pursuant to the interim order of the High Court.
Law Points
- Delay in raising industrial dispute
- Back wages
- Reinstatement
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 10
- Employment Guarantee Scheme
- Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 356
Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2004
Mrs. T.D. Khade, Assistant Government Pleader for Petitioners; Mr. S.W. Sambre, Counsel for Respondent
The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Circle, Civil Line, Nagpur; The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Medical Integrated Unit, Nagpur; The Deputy Engineer, P.W.D (E.G.S.) Sub Division, Parseoni
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement and back wages to an employee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (State Government officers) sought to quash the Labour Court award dated 05.05.2004 granting reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages to the respondent employee.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Labour Court award on grounds of delay in raising the industrial dispute, lack of jurisdiction (EGS not an industry), and delay in prosecuting the reference.
Previous Decisions
The 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur in Reference I.D.A. No. 29/1993 awarded reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages from 30.01.1987 till 21.12.2000 and from 04.05.2003 till actual reinstatement. The High Court had issued Rule on 12.07.2005 and on 27.06.2006 granted stay only to payment of back wages with direction to reinstate the employee within 4 weeks, which was complied with.
Issues
Whether the delay of almost 5 years in approaching the conciliation machinery is fatal to the claim for back wages?
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding employment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme?
Whether the delay in prosecuting the reference (adjournments for almost 5 years due to absence of respondent) disentitles the employee to back wages?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987 but approached the conciliation machinery after almost 5 years, making the reference liable to be answered in negative. Reliance placed on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Ram and Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of West Bengal. Also argued that EGS is not an industry, so Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. Further contended that the matter was adjourned for almost 5 years due to respondent's absence, and there was no evidence to justify grant of back wages.
Respondent argued that he kept approaching the employer for work and could not approach conciliation authority immediately. He stated he was without income and could not appear before the Labour Court at Nagpur. He submitted that the issue of delay was not raised in the written statement or before the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Delay in raising an industrial dispute is fatal to the claim for back wages, and the Labour Court erred in awarding back wages despite the delay. However, reinstatement already effected pursuant to an interim order need not be disturbed.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners i.e. Officers of State Government in its Public Works Department, challenge the award dated 05.05.2004 delivered by the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur in Reference I.D.A. No. 29/1993, granting relief of reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages to the respondent / employee from 30.01.1987 till 21.12.2000 and thereafter from 04.05.2003 till his actual reinstatement.
According to her, this delay is fatal and the reference sought to have been answered in negative only on account of this delay.
He points out that the issue of delay in approaching the conciliation authority was not raised at all either in Written Statement or...
Procedural History
The respondent employee worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987. He approached the conciliation machinery after almost 5 years, resulting in a reference to the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur in 1993 (Reference I.D.A. No. 29/1993). The Labour Court delivered an award on 05.05.2004 granting reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2004 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The High Court issued Rule on 12.07.2005 and on 27.06.2006 granted stay only to payment of back wages with direction to reinstate the employee within 4 weeks, which was complied with. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 07.01.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
