ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION, KOTAversusMOHAN LAL

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 91


     ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE                         A
  AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION,
                         KOTA
                          v.
                     MOHAN LAL
           (Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013)                       B
                     AUGUST 16, 2013
      [R.M. LODHA AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]

    Labour Law:                                                  C

     Termination of services of workman - Industrial dispute
raised belatedly - No objection as to delay raised -
Reinstatement ordered by Labour Court holding that
termination was in violation of s.25-F o ID Act - Held: Delay    D
in raising industrial dispute is an important circumstance
which the Labour Court must keep in view, notwithstanding
whether or not such objection has been raised -- Legal
position to be followed in case of non-compliance of s.25-F,
emphasized - In the instant case, workman worked as a work-      E
charged employee for 286 days - Labour Court did not keep
in view admitted delay of 6 years in. raising the industrial
dispute by him - Judicial discretion exercised by Labour
Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable - In the
circumstances, in lieu of reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 1   F
lac shall be paid by employer to workman - Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 -- s.25-F

     The services of the respondent-workman, who was
engaged by the appellant-employer on 1.11.1984 as
'Mistri' on muster roll, were terminated on 18.2.1986,           G
without issuing one month's prior notice or payment of
salary in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation
to him. The workman raised an industrial dispute in 1992
and, ultimately, the Labour Court held his termination as
                             91                                  H
    92       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   violative of s.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
    and directed his reinstatement with 30% back wages. The
    Single Judge of the High Court observed that the
    workman was not entitled to reinstatement as he raised
    the industrial dispute with a delay of six years, and
B   allowed Rs.5,000/- to be paid as compensation. However,
    the Division Bench of the High Court restored the award
    of the Labo~r Court.

         Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

C        HELD: 1.1 It has been held by this Court that non-
    compliance of provisions of s.25-F would not
    automatically lead to grant of relief of reinstatement with
    full back wages and continuity of service, and the Labour
    Court must take into consideration the relevant facts for
D   exercise of its discretion in granting the relief. The legal
    position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh's case
    that must be invariably followed, is that the Labour Court,
    before exercising its judicial discretion, has to keep in
    view all relevant factors including the mode and manner
E   of appointment, nature of employment, length of service,
    the ground on which termination has been set aside and
    the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of
    relief. [para 8 and 20] [96-G; 97-A-B; 103-F-G]

       Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation
F and Anr. v. Gitam Singh (201 J) 5 SCC 136; Nagar
  Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR
  681    =(2006) 5 SCC 127; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v.
  Surinder Kumar; 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 914 = (2006) 5 SCC
  173; Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation
G Ltd. v. Mamni 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638 = (2006) 9 SCC 434;
  Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar
  and Anr. 2008 (2) SCR 1069 = (2008) 4 SCC 261; Telecom
  District Manager v. Keshab Deb 2008 (7) SCR 835 = (2008)
  8 SCC 402; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture
H Marketing Board; 2009 (10) SCR 908 = (2009) 15 SCC 327;
ASSTT. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA             93
               v. MOHAN LAL
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta     A
2008 (13) SCR 1051 = (2009) 16 SCC 562; Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited v. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558; Senior
Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar
Seal and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773 • referred to.
                                                              B
     1.2 Though, Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to
the reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely
an important circumstance which the Labour Court must
keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion            C
irrespective of whether or not such objection has been
raised by the other side. Ajaib Singh, cannot be read as
laying down an absolute proposition of law that where
plea of delay is not raised by the employer, the delay in
raising the industrial dispute by the workman pales into
insignificance and the Labour Court will be unjustified in    D
taking this circumstance into consideration for moulding
the relief. On the contrary, the Court said that on account
of admitted delay, the Labour Court. ought to have
appropriately moulded the relief. [para 18 and 20] [102-
B; 103-A-B, E]                                                E

    Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C.
                        =
Joshi 2001 (3) SCR 114 (2007) 9 sec 353 - relied on.

    Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-
                                                              F
Processing Service Society Limited and Anr. 1999 (2) SCR
505  = (1999) 6 SCC 82; and Balbir Singh v. Punjab
Roadways (2001) 1 SCC 133 • referred to.

     1.3 In the instant case, the workman worked as a
work-charged employee for 286 days. He raised the             G
industrial dispute after 6 years of termination. The Labour
Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in
raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The
judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court is, thus,
flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the           H
    94      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A High Court was clearly in error in restoring the award of
  the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to
  the workman. At the same time, the compensation
  awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed
  to be enhanced. Therefore, interest of justice will be
B subserved if in lieu of reinstatement, the compensation
  of Rs.1 lac is paid by the employer to the workman.
  Ordered accordingly. [para 21-22) [103-G-H; 104-A-D]
                         Case Law Reference:
c    c2001) 1 sec 133               referred to       para 6
     1999 (2) SCR 505               referred to       para 7
     2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 681       ·referred to       para 8
     2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 914        referred to       para 9
D
     2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638        referred to       para 10
     2007 (3) SCR 114               relied on         para 11
     2008 (2) SCR 1069              referred to       para 12
E
     2008 (7) SCR 835               referred to       para 13
     2009 (10) SCR 908              referred to       para 14
     2009 (10) SCR 908              referred to       para 15
F    2008 (13) SCR 1051             referred to       para 15
     c2012) 1 sec 558               referred to       para 15
     c201 O) 6 sec 113              referred to       para 15
G    (2013) 5 sec 136               referred to       para 16
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6795 of 2013.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2005 of the
H High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur
ASSTT. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA                   95
               v. MOHAN LJl,L
in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 941 of 2001 in S.B. Civil   A
Writ Petition No. 2375 of 1999.

    Aruneshwar Gupta, Manish Raghav, Nikhil Singh for the
Appellant.

     Badri Prasad Singh for the Respondent.                         B

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     FtM. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

     '2. The consequent reli1af to be granted to the workman        C
whose termination is held to be illegal being in violation of
Sec1tion 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "ID
Act") is the sole question for our decision in this appeal. Were
it not for the argument strongly pressed by the learned counsel
for the respondent that the delay in raising industrial dispute in D
the absence of any such objection having been raised by the
employer before the labour Court is no ground to mould the
relief of reinstatement, we would not have gone into the
question which is already answered in a long line of cases of
this Court.                                                        E

     3. Mohan Lal, the workman, was engaged as "Mistri" on
muster roll by the appellant, employer, from 01.11.1984 to
17.02.1986. On 18.02.1986, the services of the workman were
terminated. While doing so, the workman was neither given one
                                                                    F
month's notice nor was he paid one month salary in lieu of that
notice. He was also not paid retrenchment compensation.

     4. In 1992, the workman raised industrial dispute which
was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour
Court, Kota (Rajasthan) for adjudication. The dispute referred      G
to the Labour Court reads as under:

     "Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal
     S/o Shri Dhanna Lal (Post-Mistri), who has been
     represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha,         H
    96         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         Kota Cantt., from service by the Employer - Assistant
          Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board,
          Sub-Division - Kota is legal and justifiable? If not, then
          applicant - labour is entitled to get what relief and
          compensation?"
B
       5. The Labour Court in its award dated 03.02.1999 held
  that the workman had completed more than 240 days in a
  calendar year and his services were terminated in violation of
  Section 25-F of the ID Act. Having held that, the Labour Court
  declared that the workman was entitled to be reinstated with
C continuity in service and 30% back wages.

       6. The employer was successful in challenging the above
  award before the Single Judge of the High Court. The Single
  Judge in his judgment dated 23.08.2001 though agreed with
D the Labour Court that the employer had te•minated workman's
  services in violation of Section 25-F but he was of the view that
  the Labour Court was not justified in directing the reinstatement
  of the workman because the workman had raised the industrial
  dispute after 6 years of his termination. Relying upon the
E decision of this Court in Balbir Singh 1, the Single Judge
  substituted the order of reinstatement by the compensation
  which was quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

      7. The workman challenged the order of the learned Single
  Judge in an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench of the High
F Court allowed the workman's appeal on 19.11.2005 by relying
  upon the decision of this Court in Ajaib Singh 2 . The Division
  Bench restored the award passed by the Labour Court.

      8. In Nagar Mahapalika 3, it was held by this Court that non
G compliance with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P.
  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (this provision is broadly pari
    1.   Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways; (2001) 1 SCC 133.
    2.   Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service
         Society Limited and Anr. (1999) 6 SCC 82.
H   3.   Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 127.
ASSTT. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA                                   97
         v. MOHAN LAL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
materia with Section 25-F), although, leads to the grant of a                        A
relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of
service in favour of the workman, the same would not mean that
such relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter'of
course. It was emphasised that the Labour Court must take into
con.sideration the relevant facts for exercise of its discretion in                  B
granting the relief.

     9. The same Bench that decided Nagar Mahapalika 3 in
Municipal Council, Sujanpur4, reiterated the above legal
position. That was a case where the Labour Court had granted
reinstatement in service with full back wages to the workman
                                                                                     c
as statutory provisions were not followed. The award was not
interfered with by the High Court. However, this Court granted
monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

     10. In Mamni5 following Nagar Mahapalika 3 , this Court                         D
held that the reinstatement granted to the workman because
there was violation of Section 25-:=, was not justified and
modified the order of reinstatement by directing that the
workman shall be compensated by payment of a sum of
Rs.25,000/- instead of the order of the reinstatement.                               E
     11. In M. C. Joshi6, this Court was concerned with the
situation which was very similar to the present case. The
workman in that case was employed as a daily wager by the
                                                                                     F
4.   Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar; (2006) 5 SCC 173.
5.   Haryana State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, (2006) 9
     sec 434.
6.   Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi; (2007) 9 SCC
     353.
•    Pg. 358; c2007) s sec 353                                                       G
     ·we are, therefore, of the opinion that keeping in view the nature and period
     of services rendered by the respondent herein as also the period during
     which he had worked and the fact that he had raised an industrial dispute
     after six years, interest of justice would be met if the impugned judgments
     are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum Rs. 75,000/- in
     favour of the respondent."                                                      H
     98          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation on 01.08.1989.
    His services were terminated on 24.11.1991 in contravention
    of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
    Act. He had completed 240 days of continuous work in a period
    of twelve months preceding the order of termination. The
. B workman approached the Conciliation Officer on or about
    02.09.1996, i.e., after a period of about five years. The Labour
    Court granted to the workman, M.C. Joshi, relief of
    reinstatement with 50% back wages. In the writ petit
    on filed by the Corporation, the direction of reinstatement was mai
  c tained but back wages were reduced from 50% to 25%. This
    Court substituted the award of reinstatement by compensation
    for a sum of Rs.75,000/-.

        12. In Ashok Kumar, this Court was concerned with the
   question as to whether the Labour Court was justified in
 D awarding relief of reir;istatement in favour of the workman who
   had worked as daily wager for two years. His termination was
   held to be violative of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. This Court
   held that the Labour Court should not have directed
   reinstatement of the workman in service and ·substituted the
 E order of reinstatement by awarding compensation of
   Rs.50,000/-··

         13. In Keshab Deb 8 , the termination of the workman who
     was a daily wager, was held illegal on diverse grounds including
 F
     7.   Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. (2008)
          4 sec 261.
     •• Pg. 265; c2oos) 4 sec 261.
          "Keeping in vi~w the fact that the respondent worked for about six years as
          also the amount of daily wages which he had been getting, we are of the
 G        opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is
          directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the first respondent. The said sum
          should be paid to the respondent within eights weeks from date, failing
          which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The
          appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and
          circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."
 H   8.   Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb; (2008) 8 SCC 402.
ASSTT. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA                                 99
        v. MOHAN LAL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
violation of the provisions of Section 25-F. This Court held that                  A
even in a case where order of termination was illegal, automatic
direction for reinstatement with full back wages was not
contemplated. The Court substituted the order of reinstatement
by an award of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-T..
    14. In Jagbir Singh9 , the Court speaking through one of us                    B
(R.M. Lodha,J) in a case where the workman had worked from
01.09.1995 to 18.07.1996 as a daily wager granted
compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the workman in lieu of

                                                                                   c
7.   Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. (2008)
    4 sec 261.
··Pg. 265; (2008) 4 sec 261.
     "Keeping in view the fact that the respondent worked for about six years as   D
     also the amount of daily wages which he had been getting, we are of the
     opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is
     directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the first respondent. The said sum
     should be paid to the respondent within eights weeks from date, failing
     which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The
     appeal is allowed to the aforesaid ex1ent. However, in the facts and
     circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."             E
8.   Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb; (2008) 8 SCC 402.
     :·· Pg. 412; (2008) 8 sec 402
     "27. Even if the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
     had not been complied with, the respondent was only entitled to be paid a
     just compensation. While, however, determining the amount of                  F
     compensation we must also take into consideration the stand taken by
     the appellants. They took not only an unreasonable stand but raised a
     contention in regard to the absence of jurisdiction in the Tribunal. They
     admittedly did not comply with the order passed by the Tribunal for a long
     time. It had raised a contention which is not otherwise tenable.
     28. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and
     circumstances of the case interest of justice shall be subserved if the       G
     respondent is directed to be paid a compensation of Rs 1,50,000 (Rupees
     one lakh fifty thousand only). The said sum should be paid to him within
     four weeks, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum."
9. Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board; (2009) 15 SCC
     327
                                                                                   H
    100         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2013] 9 S.C.R.


A reinstatement with back wages···
        15. It is not necessary to refer to subsequent three
  decisions of this Court, namely, Laxmi Kant Gupta 10, Man
  Singh 11 and Santosh Kum'ar Sea/1 2 , where the view has been
  taken in line with the cases discussed above. As a matter of
B fact in Santosh Kumar Sea/ 12 , this Court awarded
  compensation of Rs.40,000/- to each of the workmen who were
  illegally retrenched as they were engaged as daily wagers about
  25 years back and worked hardly for two or three years. It was
  held that the relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified
c and instead granted monetary compensation.
        16. Recently in the case of Gitam Singh 13, this Court

    .**** Pg. 335: (2009) 15   sec 327
    "14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this
         Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation
D        of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement
         should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement
         with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240
         days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily
         wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
         compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between
E        a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employees.
    15. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting
         reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the
         present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our
         view, the High Court erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant
         while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages.
    18. In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the
F        appellant was short and intermittent from 1-9-1995 to 18-7-1996 and that
         he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation
         of Rs 50,000 to the appellant by Respondent 1 shall meet the ends of
        justice. We order accordingly. Such payment should be made within six
         weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per
         annum."
G 10. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity· Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta; (2009) 16 SCC
        562
    11. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh ; (2012) 1 SCC 558
    12. Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal
         and Ors. ; (2010) 6 SCC 773
    13. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam
H       Singh; (2013) 5   sec 136
ASSTT. ENGR RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA 101
        ·v.· MOHAN LAL [R.M. LODHA, J.]
speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha,J) or. co11sideration       A
of the most of the cases cited above reiterated the principle       ·"
regarding exercise of judicial discretion by the Labour Court
in a matter where the termination of the workman is held to be
illegal being in violation of Section 25-F in these words : "The
Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including   B
the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment,
length of service, the ground on which the termination has been
set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before
grant of relief in an industrial dispute".
     17. Mr. Badri Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the C
workman, however, vehemently contended, which was also the
contention of the workman before the Division Bench, that plea
regarding delay was not raised before the Labour Court and,
therefore, the delay in raising the industrial dispute should not
come in the way of the workman in grant of relief of D
reinstatement. He relied upon Ajaib Singh2 . In that case, the
services of the workman, Ajaib Singh were terminated on
16.07.1974. Ajaib Singh issued the notice of demand on
18.12.1981. No plea regarding delay was taken by the
employer before the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed E
the employer to reinstate Ajaib Singh with full back wages. The
award was challenged before the High Court. The Single Judge
held that Ajaib Singh was disentitled to relief of reinstatement
as he slept over the matter for 7 years and confronted the
management at a belated stage when it might have been difficult F
for the management to prove the guilt of the workman. The
judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division
Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by
the workman before this Court. The Court was persuaded by
the grievance of the workman that in the absence of any plea G
on behalf of the employer and any evidence regarding delay,
the workman could not be deprived of the benefits under the
l.D. Act merely on the technicalities of law. However, the Court
was of the opinion that on account of th admitted delay, the

                                                                   H
    102         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2013) 9 S.C.R.


A   Labour Court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by
    denying some part of the back wages.·····

         18. Ajaib Singh 2 , in our vi.ew, cannot be read as laying
    down an absolute proposition of law that where plea of delay
    is not raised by the employer, tho delay in raising the industrial
B
    .*****Pg. 91; (1999) 6 sec 82
    "11. In the instant case, the respondent management is not shown to have
        taken any plea regarding delay an is evident from the issues framed by
         the Labour Court. The only plea raised in defence was that the Labour
         Court had no jurisdiction to adjudi.cate the reference and the termination of
c        the services of the workman wan justified. Had this plea been raised, the
         workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances
         preventing him in approaching thre Court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy
         the Court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was
         made by the Government. The learned Judges of the High Court, therefore,
         were not justified in holding that the workman had not given any explanation
D        as to why the demand notice had been issued after a long period. The
          findings of facts returned by the High Court in writ proceedings, even without
          pleadings were, therefore, unjustified. The High Court was also not justified
          in holding that the courts were bound to render an even-handed justice by
          keeping balance between the two different parties. Such an approach totally
          ignores the aims and object and the social object sought to be achieved
          by the Act. Even after noticing that "it is true that a fight between the
E         workman and the management is not a just fight between equals", the
           Court was not justified to make them equals while returning the findings,
          which if allowed to prevail, would result in frustration of the purpose of the
           enactment. The workman appears to be justified in complaining that in the
           absence of any plea on behalf of the management and any evidence,
           regarding delay, he cold not be deprived of the benefits under the Act merely
           on the technicalities of law. The High Court appears to have substituted its
F          opinion for the opinion of the Labour Court which was not permissible in
           proceedings under Articles 2261227 of the Constitution.
    12. We are, however, of the opinion that on account of the admitted delay, the
        Labour Court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief by denying
        the appellant workman some part of the back wages. In the circumstances,
        the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside by upholding
G       the award of the Labour Court with the modification that upon his
        reinstatement the appellant would be entitled to continuity of service, but
        back wages to the extent of 60 per cent with effect from 8-12-1981 when
        he raised the demand for justice till the date of award of the Labour Court,
        i.e., 16-4-1986 and full back wages thereafter till his reinstatement would
        be payable to him. The appellant is also held entitled to the costs of litigation
        assessed at Rs.5,000 to be paid by the respondent management."
H
ASSTI. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA 103
         v. MOHAN LAL {R.M. LODHA, J.]
dispute by the workman pales into insignificance and the              A
Labour Court will be unjustified in taking this circumstance into
consideration for moulding the relief. On the contrary, in Ajaib
Singh 2 , the Court said that on account of admitted delay, the
Labour Court ought to have appropriately moulded the relief
though this Court moulded the relief by denying the workman           B
some part of the back wages.

     19. In a subsequent decision in Balbir Singh1, this Court
observed that Ajaib Singh 2 was confined to the facts and
circumstances of that case. It is true that in Balbir Singh 1 , the   C
plea of delay was raised before the Industrial Tribunal but we
would emphasize the passage from Balbir Singh1 wh~re it was
said: "Whether relief to the workman should be denied on the
ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the
discretion of the Tribunal depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is to be           D
exercised judicially".

      20. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act,
1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the l.D. Act
but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important    E
circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the
time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such
objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position
laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh 13 that before exercising
its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all     F
relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment,
nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which
termination has been set aside and the delay in raising
industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute,
must be invariably followed.
                                                                      G
     21. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the
position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a work-
charged employee for a period from 01.11.1984 to 17.02.1986
(in all he worked for 286 days during his employment). The
services of the workman were terminated with effect from              H
                       ~I




    104        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A 18.02.1986. The workman raised the industrial dispute in 1992,
  i.e., after 6 years of terminatioli. The Labour Court did not keep
  in view admitted defay of 6 years in raising the industrial
  dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by
  the Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The
B Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in restoring
  the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was
  granted to the workman. Though, the compensation awarded
  by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced
  by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman
c in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief.
           22. In our opinion, interest of justice will be subserved if in
  lieu of reinstatement, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (one
  lac) is paid by the appellant (employer) to the respondent
  (workman). We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made
D by the appellant to the respondent within six weeks from today
  failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

        23. The appeal is pa:rtfy allowed to the above extent with
    no order as to costs.
E
    R.P.                                         Appeal partly allowed.