The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chandra Shekhar Awasthy
2023 Latest Caselaw 12186 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 16026 of 2007

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    THE   STATE   OF    MADHYA   PRADESH
                                 HOSHANGABAD     CIRCLE,  HOSHANGABAD
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (TERRITORIAL)
                                 FOREST   DIVISION DISTT. HOSHANGABAD
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY MR. NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           CHANDRA SHEKHAR AWASTHYDHRUV KUMAR
                           AWASTHY NEAR KALLU CHOWK MAIN ROAD SEONI
                           MALWA,TAH.SEONI MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY DR. ANIL KUMAR PARE - ADVOCATE )

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 24.03.2007 passed by Labour Court Hoshangabad in Case No.01/2005/ID Act (Reference) by which the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages.

2. I.A. No.819/2008 has been filed for amendment in the writ petition which reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 04-08-2023 17:17:50

2.That, in line 4 of para 5.6 the petitioners have made averment that "the petitioners respectfully submit that presently the respondent is being engaged as daily rated worker to avoid any dishonour to the verdict of Labour Court." It is submitted that, the Officer in charge has come to the knowledge that, actually the Range Officer Seoni Malwa was directed to intimate the respondent about his reinstatement on the basis of order of Labour Court, however, though the Range Officer has tried to communicate the respondent, he could not do so. 3. That, looking to the factual position as mentioned above, the petitioners want to amend the petition and

delete the above referred three lines in para 2 above of para 5.6 of the petition therefore, the petitioner wants to amend the petition as under:

(i) Delete the portion in line 4 of para 5.6 of the petition mentioned as "the petitioners respectfully submit that presently the respondent is being engaged as daily rated worker to avoid any dishonour to the verdict of Labour Court."

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that although the respondent had approached the Labour Court belatedly after ten years, but now the petitioner has reinstated the respondent.

4. The aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the petitioner was controverted by counsel for the respondent by submitting that it is incorrect to say that the respondent has been reinstated by the petitioner.

5. There appears to be some factual dispute as to whether the petitioners have actually reinstated the respondent or not? However, it is admitted that as per the provisions of Section 17(b) of Industrial Disputes Act the last pay drawn was paid to the respondent till 2018.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 04-08-2023 17:17:50

6. Since, the petitioners have expressed that that they have no objection for reinstatement of the respondent as well as in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 has held that since there is no limitation provided for opportunity given, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly not dismissed the reference on the ground of delay.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, reported in (2015)15 SCC 1 has held that "the law of limitation does not apply to industrial disputes. The Limitation Act does not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act and under the Industrial Disputes Act no period of limitation is prescribed. In some decisions where the reference was made after a lapse of considerable period, the Court did not set aside the reference but moulded the relief by either granting reinstatement but denying back wages, fully or partially, or else granted compensation, denying reinstatement. On the other hand, in some of the decisions, the Court held that even when there was no time prescribed to exercise power under Section 10 of the Act, such a power could not be exercised at any point of time to revive matters which had since been settled or had became stale. The words "at any time" used in Section 10 would support

that there is no period of limitation in making an order of reference. At the same time, the appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so the reference can be refused. Whether dispute is alive or it has become stale/non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 04-08-2023 17:17:50

Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference. Thus, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it for the "appropriate Government" to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words "at any time" used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry."

8. Therefore, when there exists a dispute and it has not become stale claim, then the claim cannot be rejected. Further, whether the dispute is alive or has become stale would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

9. In the present case, the Labour Court has exercised its discretion in favour of the employee. Furthermore, the petitioner has also expressed its willingness to reinstate the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is an appropriate case requiring adjudication as to whether the claim was stale or not.

10. At this stage, counsel for the respondent has expressed an apprehension that the petitioner may not actually accept the joining of the respondent.

11. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall submit his joining Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 04-08-2023 17:17:50

o n 07th of August, 2023 at 11:00 am in the office of S.D.O Forest Seoni Malwa, District-Narmadapuram (Hoshangabad).

10. It is made clear that if joining is not accepted then the respondent shall be free to move an application before Labour Court pointing out the non- compliance of the aforesaid direction.

11. With aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE julie

Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 04-08-2023 17:17:50