SRI RAM Vs. FIRST LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises for decision in this writ petition, which has been referred to us at the instance of a learned stogie Judge is whether a labour court can dismiss an application under Section 6f of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act on the ground of its not having been presented within a reasonable time.

(2.) THE petition is directed against an order of the first labour court, Kanpur, dated 29 September 1963, dismissing an application of a workman named Sri Ram under Section 6f challenging his dismissal with effect from 8 June 1961 by his employer (the Muir Mills Company, Ltd. , Kanpur ). The petitioner's contention is that the employer had contravened the provisions of Section 6e (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, because it had not applies for permission to dismiss him, despite the fact that a number of industrial disputes were already pending between the concern and its workmen, in which the petitioner was directly interested. At first the State Government was asked to take action, but on 2 February 1962 It refused to make a reference under Section 4k of the Act. Thereafter, on 4 September 1962, Sri Ram himself filed an application under Section 6f; but the labour court, finding that the delay of six or seven months that had elapsed between the refusal of the State Government to make a reference and the filing of this application had not been accounted for, held that Sri Ram was guilty of laches and was, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The application under Section 6f was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) IN Amrita Bazar Patrika (Private), Ltd. v. Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Tribunal and Ors. 1964-II L. L. J. 53, D. D. Seth, J. , has expressed the view that there must be a reasonable period for complaints to be filed under Section 6f of the Act. and that the tribunal dealing with such a complaint has the power to refuse to entertain it, if it is too balated. But having carefully considered the wording of Section 6f, we find ourselvss, with due reapact, unable to agree with this view. The section runs thus: Where an employer contravenes the provisions of Section 6f during the pendency of proceedings before a labour court or tribunal, any workman aggrieved by such. contravension may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner, to the labour court oil tribunal, as the case may be, and on receipt of such complaint that labour court on tribunal as the case may be shall adjudicate upon complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in accordance with this Act, and shall subject its award to the State Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. It is to be noted that this section lays down that whenever a complaint is made thereunder, the labour court or tribunal receiving such complaint shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it is accordance with this Act. In the first place, this implies that it is obligatory on the court or tribunal to give a decision on the merits of the complaint, provided, of course, it falls within the ambit of the section; there is nothing in the section to indicate that the court or tribunal has been given the power to throw out the complaint and to refrain from adjudicating on it it, has been filed late, Secondly the words used in the section shows that a complaint under Section 6f has been equated with a reference under Section 4k of the Act, for the complaint has to be adjudicated on by the court or tribunal as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it; and if the court or tribunal has no power to dismiss a reference under Section 4k on the ground that it is belated there, would seem to be no justification for imputing to the court or tribunal the power to dismiss a complaint under Section 6f as such grounds. It has never been suggested that a reference under Section 4k can be thrown out on the score of delay: similarly, therefore, a complaint under Section 6f cannot be disposed of in this manner.