Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Bata India Limited, challenged an order of reference dated 31.03.2015 made by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referring a dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute concerned the dismissal of a workman, Sri D.C. Chikke Gowda, on 16.07.2001. The workman had been charge-sheeted in 2000 for misconduct, including threatening an Enquiry Officer and leaving the workplace without permission. Enquiry proceedings were conducted, and the workman was found guilty. Before dismissal, the workman had applied for protected workman status on 24.04.2001, which was initially rejected but eventually granted with retrospective effect after multiple rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP on 22.08.2014. Two months later, the Union raised an industrial dispute, leading to the impugned reference. The management contended that the reference was stale and vitiated by a delay of 14 years, causing prejudice to the employer who would have to justify the dismissal after such a long period. The workmen argued that the delay was caused by the bona fide pursuit of protected workman status, and the Tribunal could consider the delay aspect. The core legal issue was whether the reference should be quashed on the ground of delay. The court, relying on precedents including Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., held that although Section 10 prescribes no limitation period, the appropriate Government must exercise its power reasonably and not refer stale disputes. An inordinate delay renders the dispute non-existent and the reference liable to be quashed. The proceedings for protected workman status were separate and did not explain the delay in challenging the dismissal. The court found no rational basis for the reference after 14 years and concluded that it was destructive to industrial peace. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the reference order dated 31.03.2015 was quashed.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference under Section 10 - Delay - State disputes cannot be referred - Appropriate Government must exercise power reasonably; a reference made after an inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation is vitiated - Where the workman was dismissed in 2001 and raised dispute in 2015 after a gap of 14 years, the delay was not explained by the proceedings for protected workman status as that was unrelated to the challenge to dismissal - Held that the reference was stale and liable to be quashed (Paras 9-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference dated 31.03.2015 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should be quashed on the ground of delay, rendering the dispute stale?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of reference dated 31.03.2015. The court held that the reference was vitiated by an inordinate delay of 14 years, and the proceedings for protected workman status did not explain the delay in challenging the dismissal. The appropriate Government had failed to exercise its power under Section 10 reasonably, and the stale dispute could not be the subject-matter of reference.
Law Points
- No limitation for reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- but power must be exercised reasonably
- stale dispute cannot be referred
- delay vitiates reference if evidence lost
- reference is subject to judicial review under Article 226 if no industrial dispute exists
- protected workman status proceedings do not justify delay in raising industrial dispute
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (02) 13
Writ Petition No.47002/2015 (L – TER)
Syed Kashif Ali, Pradeep S. Sawkar for petitioner; M.C. Nagashree, AGA for respondent No.1; K.S. Subramanya for respondent No.2
State of Karnataka and President, Bata Employees Association
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 the reference of an industrial dispute by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground of inordinate delay.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (management) sought to quash the order of reference dated 31.03.2015 made by respondent No.1 (State of Karnataka) referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The management contended that the reference made 14 years after the dismissal order was stale and vitiated by delay, causing prejudice to the employer who would have to prove the misconduct and justify the dismissal after a long lapse of time.
Previous Decisions
The workman was dismissed on 16.07.2001. Prior to dismissal, he had applied for protected workman status on 24.04.2001. The application was initially rejected on 17.08.2001, but after a writ petition (WP 32751/2001) and subsequent proceedings, including a writ appeal (WA 1030/2009) and a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court (dismissed on 22.08.2014), the workman was eventually granted protected workman status with retrospective effect. The industrial dispute was raised thereafter, leading to the impugned reference. No prior adjudication on the dismissal itself had taken place.
Issues
Whether the reference dated 31.03.2015 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, should be quashed on the ground of delay, rendering the dispute stale?
Submissions/Arguments
The management argued that the reference was made after 14 years, compelling them to prove the misconduct and justify the dismissal, which was prejudicial due to the inordinate delay caused by the workman; the reference ought to be quashed as stale, relying on Supreme Court judgments holding that delay vitiates the reference.
The workmen contended that the delay was not attributable to them but was due to the diligent pursuit of protected workman status under the Act, which would protect the dismissal order; the proceedings were initiated even before the dismissal, and the Industrial Tribunal could consider the delay aspect as the reference itself noted it.
Ratio Decidendi
While Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not prescribe a limitation period for making a reference, the power must be exercised reasonably. A dispute that has become stale due to inordinate delay ceases to exist and cannot be referred. The delay is fatal if it results in loss of evidence or renders the claim belated. Additionally, the High Court can examine the jurisdictional validity of a reference under Article 226, including whether an industrial dispute exists, and quash the reference if no such dispute exists or if it is stale.
Judgment Excerpts
Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner.
A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act.
When belated claims are considered as stale and non-existing for the purpose of refusing or rejecting a reference under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), in spite of no period of limitation being prescribed, it will be illogical to hold that the amendment to the Act inserting Section 10(4-A) prescribing a time-limit of six months, should be interpreted as reviving all stale and dead claims.
Procedural History
The workman, appointed in 1993, was charge-sheeted in 2000 and dismissed on 16.07.2001. Before dismissal, he applied for protected workman status on 24.04.2001. That application was rejected on 17.08.2001, but after a writ petition (WP 32751/2001) and a writ appeal (WA 1030/2009), the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 22.08.2014, effectively confirming the protected workman status. The Union then raised an industrial dispute, and the State Government made the reference dated 31.03.2015. The management filed the present writ petition challenging the reference on the ground of delay.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10, Section 10(1)(c), Section 10(1)(d), Section 10(4-A)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
