Unexplained Delay & Laches Enough For Court To Not Exercise Its Extraordinary Jurisdiction Under Art. 226: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained delay or laches in filing the writ petition is a sufficient cause for a Court to refrain from exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appeal challenging the settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings a decade ago, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice...
The Gujarat High Court has held that unexplained delay or laches in filing the writ petition is a sufficient cause for a Court to refrain from exercising its extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In an appeal challenging the settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings a decade ago, a bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri observed that the principle of 'delay defeats equity' shall be applicable in the present scenario considering the petitioners have woken up from a deep slumber after several years without providing any rationale for such delay.
The bench further added that even on merits, the conciliation proceedings which have been a result of collective bargaining, cannot be set aside on grounds of being unreasonable when the majority of workmen involved in proceedings have been satisfied with the decision.
In the instant case, the Petitioner Union consisting of 18 employees of Respondent No 3 sought that the settlement mediated by the Conciliation Officer be set aside because the Conciliation officer had rejected the application of the Petitioner-Union to participate in the conciliation proceedings.
Stating that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner prayed that the Conciliation Officer had no power to reject the application of the Petitioner-Union to be impleaded as parties. It was submitted that the benefits flowing from the conciliation settlement have also not been extended to the 18 members of the Petitioner-Union which prejudice their interests.
The bench at the outset observed that the Conciliation Officer was duly appointed under Section 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the settlement was reached, and an agreement was entered into as per Section 12(3) of the Act.
The Bench noted that once a settlement is reached after conciliation, it becomes binding on all parties, and it is assumed that the proceedings were just and fair. This aligned with the ITC Limited Workers Welfare Association vs. Management of ITC Limited [AIR 2002 SC 937] judgement where it was held that an individual employee cannot 'wriggle out' of the settlement merely because it did not suit him.
The bench further iterated the trite law that the settlement is a product of collective bargaining and it can only be ignored in exceptional circumstances like if the proceedings were demonstrably unjust, unfair or the result of mala fides such as corrupt motive on part of the parties who were instrumental in effecting the settlement.
The Court further noted that the settlement was reached between a Trade Union comprising 124 members after collective bargaining. Meanwhile, the Petitioner tried to get itself impleaded as a party with only 13 members in March 2012. When their application was rejected, the Petitioner-Union did not challenge it until August 2015. There was no reason for such delay or tardiness as per the Bench.
The Bench relied on the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 322] judgement which held that the delay not satisfactorily explained would itself be a ground for not exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction.
According to the Bench, the Petitioner-Union displayed tardiness on three grounds:
- When the application was filed and rejected in 2012, the Petitioner did not submit a fresh representation until 2015.
- Between submitting the representation in 2015 and filing a Special Civil Application until 2016, the Petitioner Union did not pursue its grievance or undertake any steps.
- The Petitioner withdrew the SCA of 2016 in 2019 and then took filed the present Petition in 2022 without any explanation for the delay.
Further averring the significance of conciliation award reached through collective bargaining, the bench stated that the petitioner could not contest the award when 128 other workmen had accepted it and were satisfied with it.
Therefore, on grounds of the petitioner's inexplicable delay and feeble submissions pertaining to setting aside the award without any grounds of it being unjust or unfair, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: Gujarat Rajya Kamdar Sena v. Government Of Gujarat
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 13
Case No.: C/SCA/951/2022