Reasonable Time Limit Applies Even Without Statutory Limitation; P&H HC On Labor References

Background

A clerk-cum-cashier of Punjab and Sind Bank was dismissed from service in December 1991 following disciplinary proceedings for alleged misappropriation of Rs. 51,500/-. After his dismissal order was confirmed by the appellate authority in October 1994, the employee remained inactive until his acquittal in criminal proceedings in April 2005. Following the acquittal, he approached the labor authorities, leading to a reference order dated August 28, 2006, by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh under Section 10 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Arguments

The Bank, through its counsel, contended that the employee's approach to labor authorities in 2005, after maintaining silence from 1994 to 2005, was unjustified. They emphasized that departmental proceedings operate independently from criminal proceedings, and although no limitation period is prescribed under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, references cannot be made beyond a reasonable period. The respondent's counsel countered by highlighting that no limitation period was prescribed under Section 10 of the Act at the relevant time, and the three-year limitation under Section 2A was introduced only in September 2010, well after the 2006 reference.

The Decision

Firstly, addressing the crucial issue of limitation, the court held that even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, authorities are bound to act within a reasonable timeframe. While the labor authority acted promptly by making the reference in 2006 upon receiving the application in 2005, the employee's approach after 11 years from the dismissal of his appeal was deemed unreasonably delayed. The court noted that while the three-year limitation period introduced in Section 2A in 2010 couldn't be directly applied to pre-amendment cases, it could serve as a guideline for determining reasonable period.

Secondly, the court dealt with the independence of departmental proceedings from criminal trials. Citing Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas (2004) and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996), the court emphasized that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres with different approaches, objectives, and standards of proof. The court firmly established that an employee cannot revive a dead claim merely on the grounds of acquittal in criminal proceedings.

Lastly, referring to Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022), the court reiterated the limited scope of interference under Article 226 in disciplinary matters. It emphasized that departmental authorities are fact-finding bodies with discretion to impose appropriate punishment based on their assessment of evidence. The court highlighted that judicial review in such cases is restricted to specific grounds such as procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, or conclusions that are wholly arbitrary and capricious. Thus, the court set aside the reference order dated August 28, 2006, holding it to be legally unsustainable due to the unreasonable delay in approaching the labor authorities.

Date of Decision: 18.10.2024

Citation: 2024:PHHC:136054

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Lohan with Mr. Sahil Lohan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Uday Agnihotri

Click Here To Read/Download The Order