Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Western Coalfields Ltd. (employer) against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which allowed a writ petition filed by the workman, Santosh Kumar Gupta, challenging an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT had upheld the termination of the workman for misconduct. The employer contended that the workman approached the reference machinery after an inordinate delay of 23 years, causing prejudice as the employer could not produce records of the departmental enquiry. The employer argued that the learned Single Judge re-appreciated the evidence, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. The workman did not appear. The court examined the award and noted that the reference was made under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court found that the delay was unexplained and that the employer suffered prejudice. The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting findings of fact. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and restored the award of the CGIT.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Delay and Laches - Reference under Section 10(2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Unexplained delay of 23 years in raising dispute - Employer unable to produce departmental enquiry records due to passage of time - Held that such delay causes prejudice and stale claims should not be entertained (Paras 3-4).
B) Industrial Dispute - Re-appreciation of Evidence - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Learned Single Judge re-appreciated evidence and substituted findings of fact - Held that writ court should not re-appreciate evidence unless perverse or unreasonable (Paras 3-5).
C) Industrial Dispute - Misconduct - Proof by Adducing Evidence - Employer led evidence to substantiate misconduct after departmental enquiry was vitiated - Industrial Tribunal found misconduct established - Held that findings of fact based on evidence should not be lightly interfered with (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence and setting aside the Industrial Tribunal's award in a stale industrial dispute where the employer suffered prejudice due to delay.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 9.9.2009 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The award dated 21.5.2008 of the CGIT is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay in raising industrial dispute
- Prejudice to employer due to stale claim
- Re-appreciation of evidence in writ jurisdiction
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 138
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2/2010 in Writ Petition No. 3618/2008
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Mr. A.S. Mehadia for appellant; None for respondents
Santosh Kumar Gupta, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial-cum-Labour Court
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of learned Single Judge in writ petition challenging award of Industrial Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
Appellant employer sought setting aside of the learned Single Judge's judgment and restoration of the Industrial Tribunal's award.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the learned Single Judge's decision which allowed the workman's writ petition and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) delivered an award on 21st May 2008 in favour of the employer, upholding the termination. The learned Single Judge allowed the workman's writ petition on 9th September 2009, setting aside the award.
Issues
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in re-appreciating evidence in writ jurisdiction?
Whether the delay of 23 years in raising the industrial dispute was properly explained?
Whether the employer suffered prejudice due to the delay?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was huge delay in approaching reference machinery, causing prejudice as employer could not produce departmental enquiry records.
Appellant argued that learned Single Judge re-appreciated evidence, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction.
Appellant argued that delay was not explained by mere representations.
Appellant relied on Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B. Narawade.
Ratio Decidendi
In industrial disputes, unexplained delay of 23 years in raising the dispute causes prejudice to the employer, and writ courts should not re-appreciate evidence to substitute findings of fact unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
Short contention of Advocate Mehadia is, apart from huge delay in approaching the reference machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, independently prejudice caused to employer has also come on record, inasmuch as the employer could not produce the records of departmental enquiry.
The learned Single Judge has taken a different view of same material and, thus, re-appreciated the entire evidence which should not have been done in writ jurisdiction.
Procedural History
The workman was terminated. The matter was referred to CGIT under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. CGIT delivered award on 21.5.2008 in favour of employer. Workman filed Writ Petition No. 3618/2008, which was allowed by learned Single Judge on 9.9.2009. Employer filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 2/2010. On 22.3.2010, interim stay was granted and confirmed. Appeal heard and decided on 3.10.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10(2A)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
