Delay By Itself Doesn't Extinguish Govt's Authority To Refer Industrial Disputes, Relevant To Examine Whether Dispute Still Exists: HP High Court

The court explained that while delay is a relevant factor in determining whether a dispute still "exists," it does not automatically render the dispute stale or non-existent.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the case, highlighted this principle by stating, "The delay by itself does not denude the appropriate Government of its power to examine advisability of making reference of the industrial dispute though the delay would certainly be relevant for deciding the basic question whether or not the industrial dispute 'exists' which also includes the decision to find out whether on account of delay the dispute has ceased to exist or has ceased to be alive or has become stale or has faded away."

Justice Dua further noted that whether a dispute is still alive or has become non-existent depends on the facts of each case, with no universal rule applicable.

The case involved an employee who contested an order by the Joint Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, refusing to refer his industrial dispute to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The Commissioner had cited a seven-year delay in raising the demand, as the employee, who had been employed by the Public Works Department until December 2008, only raised the issue on December 17, 2018.

The Commissioner concluded that the dispute had faded away over time and decided not to refer the matter for adjudication.

Justice Dua called for a re-examination of this decision, drawing upon principles established in the Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. case. This precedent clarified that the government's function in making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is administrative, not judicial.

The court noted that the government must form a definite opinion on whether a dispute exists and should consider relevant factors rather than acting mechanically. Moreover, the government is not to adjudicate the merits of the dispute but must apply its mind to the advisability of making a reference, especially in the context of delay.

In Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., the court established several key principles regarding the handling of industrial disputes. Notably, it emphasized that while there is no prescribed time limit for the government to decide on making a reference, this power must be exercised within a reasonable period.

Furthermore, even if a reference is made after a significant delay, the Industrial Court retains the authority to return the reference under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and determine whether any relief should be granted to the workman.

The court also highlighted that the government must consider whether the workman or the union has taken steps to keep the dispute alive by agitating the matter before appropriate forums.

Justice Dua concluded that the impugned order lacked consideration of these legal principles. The decision to refuse the reference was based primarily on the delay, without adequately assessing whether the dispute still existed.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the order and directed the Joint Labour Commissioner to reconsider the matter in light of the principles outlined in Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.

Case Title: Suresh Kumar Versus the State of H.P & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 41

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement