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 from 04.05.2003 till actual reinstatement. The respondent had worked as a daily wage employee under the Employment Guarantee Scheme from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987. He raised an industrial dispute after almost 5 years, leading to a reference in 1993. The petitioners contended that the delay was fatal and that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction as the EGS was not an 'industry'. They also argued that the employee did not diligently prosecute the matter, causing adjournments for about 5 years. The respondent claimed he was repeatedly approaching the employer for work and was without income, explaining the delay. The High Court observed that the delay in raising the dispute and in prosecuting the reference was not properly considered by the Labour Court while awarding back wages. Relying on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Ram and Steel Authority of India Limited v. State of West Bengal, the court held that such delay disentitles the employee to back wages. However, since the respondent had already been reinstated pursuant to an interim order, the court did not disturb the reinstatement. The High Court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the award of back wages and directing that the respondent shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from 30.01.1987 till his actual reinstatement, except for the period from 22.12.2000 to 03.05.2003 when he was in service.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Delay in Raising Dispute - Back Wages - The respondent employee worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987 and raised a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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 approaching the conciliation authority was fatal to the claim for back wages, and the Labour Court ought to have considered the delay while awarding back wages. (Paras 2, 4)
B) Industrial Dispute - Delay in Prosecution - Back Wages - The matter was adjourned for almost 5 years due to absence of the respondent employee. The High Court held that this delay in prosecuting the reference also disentitled the employee to back wages for that period. (Paras 2, 4)
C) Industrial Dispute - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The High Court upheld the order of reinstatement but set aside the award of back wages, directing that the respondent employee shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from 30.01.1987 till his actual reinstatement, except for the period from 22.12.2000 to 03.05.2003 during which he was in service. (Para 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 raising the industrial dispute and the delay in prosecuting the reference.
Final Decision
The High Court partially allowed the writ petition. The order of reinstatement was upheld, but the award of back wages was set aside. The respondent employee shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from 30.01.1987 till his actual reinstatement, except for the period from 22.12.2000 to 03.05.2003 during which he was in service.
Law Points
- Delay in raising industrial dispute
- Back wages
- Reinstatement
- Daily wage employee
- Employment Guarantee Scheme
- Industrial Dispute
- Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 357
Writ Petition No. 2939 of 2005
Mrs. T.D. Khade (Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Petitioners), Mr. S.W. Sambre (Counsel for Respondent)
The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Circle, 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.
Remedy Sought
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.
Issues
Whether the delay of almost 5 years in raising the industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is fatal to the claim for back wages?
Whether the delay in prosecuting the reference (adjournments for about 5 years due to absence of employee) disentitles the employee to back wages?
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding employment under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987 and raised a dispute after almost 5 years, which is fatal. They also contended that EGS is not an industry, so Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. Further, the matter was adjourned for almost 5 years due to absence of respondent, yet Labour Court awarded 50% back wages without evidence.
Respondent argued that he was repeatedly approaching the employer for work and was without income, explaining the delay. He submitted that the issue of delay was not raised in the written statement before the Labour Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Delay in raising an industrial dispute and delay in prosecuting the reference are relevant factors in determining entitlement to back wages. Such delay disentitles the employee to back wages, though reinstatement may still be ordered. The Labour Court ought to have considered these delays while awarding back wages.
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.
In this situation, the order of reinstatement is not disturbed. However, the award of back wages is set aside. The respondent employee shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from 30.01.1987 till his actual reinstatement, except for the period from 22.12.2000 to 03.05.2003 during which he was in service.
Procedural History
The respondent employee worked from 09.11.1982 to 29.01.1987. He raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 after almost 5 years, resulting in Reference I.D.A. No. 29/1993 before the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. 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 2005 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench. Rule was issued on 12.07.2005, and on 27.06.2006, stay was granted only to payment of back wages with direction to reinstate the employee within 4 weeks. The respondent was reinstated accordingly. 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
