NASIB CHAND Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above cases address the common question relating to the validity of the awards passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference obtained at the instance of the workmen who complained that they had been illegally terminated from service. All the petitioners were admittedly workmen under the 2nd respondent-Management in a biscuit factory. To a contention by the workmen that they had been illegally terminated from service on 25.10.1989, without complying with the statutory mandate of Section 25N or 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the defence was that the factory had become sick and it had been closed on 25.10.1989, and since it was a case of closure, the petitioners could not complain that there had been any illegal termination of service. It was also the contention that the demand notices themselves had been issued only in October, 1994 and a reference sought after a long delay was barred by laches and limitation. It was also their contention that the petitioners through their union representatives had been parties to a settlement that had been brought about by the Management and the petitioners had also received the first installment of Rs. 500/- and it was brought at a time when proceedings had been taken before the BIFR. The BIFR had declared the company as "sick" and provided for a settlement and the persons who were being parties could not resile from the same and complain of illegal termination of service.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in some of the cases Sh. Satya Pal Jain points out that there is no bar of limitation for seeking a reference for illegal termination and the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. If ever there was delay, it could always be sufficiently dealt with by denial of back wages in full or in portion and that there would be no justification for rejecting the reference at all. The petitioners would also contend that in any event if there was a delay, it was duly explained by the fact that the workmen had been engaging themselves in various litigations in various forums. During the year 1989-90, the petitioners participated before the BIFR and later at AIFR and when their claims had been dismissed they had also sought intervention through a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition came to be dismissed observing that proper remedy for the petitioners would be to apply to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was at that time that they sought a reference and therefore, if there had been a delay, it was on account of relevant factors culminating ultimately in the proceedings before the Labour Court. There was therefore no ground rejecting the petition on the issue of delay.

(3.) The learned counsel refers to a ruling of the Supreme Court in Shahji v. Executive Engineer, PWD., 2005 12 SCC 141that even if there was a delay and the Court comes to conclusion that termination was illegal, it can still mould the relief to be granted to workmen. In such cases, the award of back wages can either be permitted or curtailed. In this case, there has been an observation in the passing that the act of closure of the factory by the Management was made resulting in termination of workmen from service was not in accordance with law. Evidently, it was a case where the statutory mandate for either closure or termination had not been followed and the Court could not have rejected the petition merely on the ground of laches. To the same point is also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, 1999 6 SCC 82that held that a reference of industrial dispute to Labour Court was not subject to limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was intervening in a case where this Court had found the said Article as applicable to deny relief to workmen who were seeking for relief after 5 years after termination.