JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON USHA DEVI V/S UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Jan. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 18:

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to give a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to refer the dispute under section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court.

3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 03.12.2002 on the post of Miner Loader at Tetulmari Colliery. On 18.04.2005 a notice was issued upon him asking him to explain about his unauthorised absence and thereafter an enquiry was set-up and finally he was dismissed sometime in the year 2006. The husband of the petitioner made representation dated 27.05.2006 before the Chief General Manager against the order of dismissal. He also made an appeal before the Chairman cum Managing Director on 29.07.2008 with a request to consider his case for reinstatement. Unfortunately he died on 13.06.2014. After his death the Union raised a demand before the respondent no. 3 for employment of the dependent of the deceased which was replied by the department on 13.02.2017 and finally the respondent no. 3 submitted a failure report of conciliation proceeding to the respondent no. 2 on 27.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was not referred to the competent Labour Court, which should have been. Thus, this application has been filed.

4. Admittedly the original workman was dismissed in the year 2006 and died in the year 2014. Though he made representation and filed an appeal, no demand was raised by him or by the Union to refer the dismissal matter under the Industrial Dispute Act. He kept quiet. Only after his death the Union raised a demand for employment of his dependent in which also there is failure of conciliation proceeding in the year 2017.

5. This writ petition has been filed for referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. From the facts of this case I find that a long time had lapsed in this case. Though there is no limitation prescribed in the act but it is the policy of the industrial adjudication that stale claims cannot be entertained.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt." reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 at paragraph 44 has held as under:-

44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqGFdeVLajehVVphJYLFiuwl%2BybD46OT0xNQlDS86HLO4&caseno=WPC/7528/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010442992024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.