Holding

The Supreme Court quashed the Labour Court’s order because it did not decide the jurisdictional issue of the ID Act’s applicability and ignored the delay, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Gurmit Singh was employed as a daily‑wage chowkidar by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab from 1 June 1985 until his termination on 25 August 1986 without notice or compensation. He invoked the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, which found he had worked more than 240 days and ordered his reinstatement; the High Court affirmed this order. The employers appealed, contending that the Act did not apply to them because they were not an "industry" and that the nine‑year delay in filing the claim rendered the dispute stale. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court had failed to decide the crucial jurisdictional question of the Act’s applicability and to consider the delay, and therefore its order could not stand. The appeals were allowed, the orders were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the Labour Court to adjudicate on those points, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies to the employer and the dispute in question.
Whether the nine‑year delay in filing the claim bars relief on the ground of lapse of time or laches.
Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain the reference without first deciding the applicability of the Act.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(c), s. 10(4)
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActLabour Court jurisdictionDelay and lachesReinstatementStanding Orders ActIndustrial disputeSection 10 referenceChowkidar

Judgment

DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB AND ANR. A
v.
GURMIT SINGH

APRIL 17, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGHPANTA, JJ.] B

Labour Laws:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c
s.10--Reference to Lribour Court-Labour Court, without deciding
pleas of non-applicability of the Act and 9 years delay in making the claim,
directing reinstatement of workman-High Court declining to interfere-
Held, Labour Court having not adjudicated on the jurisdictional aspect and
delay, orders of Labour Court and High Court set aside-Matter remitted to D
Labour Court for adjudication on these aspects-Jurisdiction of Labour
Court-Delay/Laches.

Respondent in Civil Appeal No. 7637/2004 was engaged as Chowkidar
by the appellants on 1.6.1985 on monthly wages of Rs. 400/-. His services
were terminated on 25.8.1986. On reference under s.10(4) of the Industrial E
Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court held that the workman had worked for
more than 240 days and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service.
The writ petition of the employers having been dismissed by the High Court,
they filed the appeal. Civil Appeal nos. 6766/2004 and 2608/2004 were also
filed on similar facts.
F
It was contended for the appellants that both the Labour Court and the
High Court failed to decide the please of non-applicability of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, and 9 years delay in making the claim.

Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to Labour Court, the
~rt G
HELD: In the instant case apart from the fact that the long delay aspect
has not been considered by the Labour Court, it is also did not decide the
jurisdictional fact about the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

261 H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A That being so, the order of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court,
cannot be sustained and stands quashed. The Labour court would adjudicate
on these aspects. (Paras 6 and 8) (264-G-H; 265-B)

National Engineering Industries Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
[2000) l SCC 371 and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board
B and Ors., [2001) 6 sec 222, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7637 of2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11. I 1.2002 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 17879 of2002.
c
WITH

C.A. Nos. 6766/2004 & 2608/2004.

Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katya!, T.P. Mishra and Arun K.
D Sinha for the Appellants.
Suresh Kumari, Dinesh Ve1ma and A.P. Mohanty for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E Dr. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the
writ petitions filed by the present appellants. Challenge in the writ petitions
was to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (in
short the 'Labour Court'). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

F 2. The dispute in three appeals being common, factual position in Civil
Appeal No. 7637 of 2004 is noted.

Civil Appeal No.763712004

3. Reference was made to the Labour Court under Section 10(1 )(c) of the
G Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'ID Act') of the following purported
dispute:

"Whether termination of services of Gurmit Singh-Workman is justified
and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled?"

H The case of the workman was that he joined the present appellants as
DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 263
~ Chowkidar and worked therein from 1.6.1985 to 24.8.1986. His services were A
terminated on 25.8.1986 by the Management without service of any notice,
holding of any enquiry or payment of any compensation. He was getting
Rs.400/-p.m. at that time as wages. He is covered under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (in short the 'Standing Orders Act').
The Management d.id not comply with the principles of natural justice while
terminating his services. The notice of reference was given to the present B

... ___...
appellants. It was stated in the written statement inter alia that the claimant
was working as Chowkidar on daily wages. His services endt:d with the end
of each working day. The claim of the claimant that he had worked from
1.6.1986 to 24.8.1986 is not correct. The services of the claimant were dispensed
with as he was surplus. No notice or enquiry or compensation was .required c
as the claimant was a worker on daily wages. He was working in the department
on daily wages as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur from time to
time. It was also pleaded in the preliminary objections that there aie three
categories of Chowkidars in the Food and Supplies Department to safeguard
the food grains stocks. The first category consists of regular Chowkidars
according to the sanctioned strength drawing regular pay scale. The second D
category consists of temporary Chowkidars. They are recruited through
~ employment exchange and draw emoluments equal to the regular Chowkidars.
The third category consists of daily wages Chowkidars who draw fixed daily
wage from time to time fixed by the department of concerned districts. The
services of the Chowkidars on daily wages end with the end of each working E
day. Their strength increased/decreased with the increase/decrease of the
food grains stocks. The services of the daily wages Chowkidars were dispensed
with on becoming surplus. The workman in the present case belonged to the
third category i.e. daily wages Chowkidar. His services were dispensed with
on becoming surplus alongwith others. It was also stated that the present
- -<; appellants cannot be treated as an industry and the ID Act has no application. F
The Labour Court relied on certain documents and concluded that the workman
had worked for more than 240 days. Unfortunately, the Labour Court did not
record any finding about the non applicability of the ID Act. It was noted that
the workman was gainfully employed after the termination of his services.
Accordingly, direction was given for re-instatement with continuity of service. G
This finding was recorded primarily on the ground that he had worked for
/ - ), more than 240 days. No finding was recorded on the plea taken by the present
appellants that the claim was made after 9 years without explaining the belated
apprpach.

4. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the present H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A appellants on the ground that even if there was belated approach, the Court f
could not decline to grant relief but it could mould the relief.
,...
5. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that both the trial court and the High Court did not notice the basic challenge
of the appellants about the non-applicability of the ID Act. Apparently, the
B Labour court had not considered the plea about non applicability of the ID
Act. This was specifically pleaded. It is true that the Labour court could not
have declined to answer the reference. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal and
the Labour court as the case may be in dealing with an industrial dispute is ;.-- t '

limited. The point was mentioned in Section 10(4) of the ID Act in National
c Engineering Industries Ltd v. State ofRajasthan and Ors., [2000] 1SCC371.
It was held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition
when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute which could be
the subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Tribunal under Section
10 of the ID Act. Thus the existence of the industrial dispute is a jurisdictional
factor. Absence of jurisdictional fact results in invalidation of the reference.
D The Tribunal or the Labour Court under Section I0 gets jurisdiction to decide
an industrial dispute only upon a reference by the appropriate government.
The Tribunal or the Labour Court cannot invalidate the reference on the
!<.
ground of delay. If the employer makes a grievance that the workman has
made a stale claim then an employer can challenge the reference by way of
E a writ petition and contend that since the claim is belated there was no
industrial dispute. The Tribunal or the Labour Court cannot strike down the
reference on this ground. As observed in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State
Electricity Board and Ors., (2001] 6 SCC 222 there are cases in which lapse
of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept
the dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible to conclude
F in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when
the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the >- '
Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to
wane into total eclipse. The long delay for making the adjudication could be
considered by the Adjudicating Authority while moulding the reliefs. That is
a difrerent matter altogether.
G
6. In the instant case apart from the fact that the long delay aspect has
not been considered by the Labour Court it also did not decide the jurisdictional
fact about the applicability of the ID Act. That being so, the order of the
Labour court as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and stands
1, -
-
~
H quashed. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
DIRECTOR, FOOD AND SUPPLIES, PUNJAB v. GURMIT SINGH [PASA YAT,J.] 265
't 7. In view of our conclusions in Civil Appeal No.763712004, Civil Appeal A
Nos. 6766 of2004 and 2608 of2004 are also allowed on the same terms with
no order as to costs.

8. The matter is remitted to the Labour court to adjudicate on these
aspects. Since the matter is pending since long the Labour court would do
well to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of receipt of B
this order.

R.P. Appeals allowed.