# Manoj Kumar Sahu v. The Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-07
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-sahu-v-the-union-of-india-and-others-42144
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.
Sri K.L. Grover
Sri Raj Kumari Devi
Sri I.S. Tomar
Sri Ramesh Singh

Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947-Section
2(5), 10-Refusal of reference by Central
Govt. on ground of delay-held not
proper-industrial
dispute
a
welfare
legislation for settlement of disputes
between employees and employer-only
the Labor Court or Industrial tribunal
Court can consider this aspect-Central
Govt. can not be allowed to stepped into
the shoes of Labor Court or Tribunalorder
not
sustainable-consequential
direction given.

Held: Para 10

As regards question of limitation is
concerned, it is for the Labour Court to
grant relief or not to grant relief taking
into consideration the question of delay.
The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare
legislation for settlement of industrial
dispute between an employer and the
employee. Even an apprehended dispute
can be referred what to say of an
existing
dispute.
In
our
considered
opinion, suffice it to say that as the
Central Government has refused to refer
the dispute by adjudicating upon the
matter itself it has stepped into the
shoes of the Labour Court, or the
Industrial Tribunal or the appropriate
Board, we quash the impugned order
dated 18.6.2002 as well as the judgment
and order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 32844 of 2003, Manoj
Kumar Sahu versus Union of India and
others.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1970 SC-1205; AIR 1959 SC-1217

## Text

152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

21.

Registry
is
directed
to
communicate this order to the Additional
Solicitor General of India, and Secretary
Law, Union of India, Advocate General,
U.P., Principal Secretary (Law), U.P. within
a week.

22. A copy of this order may also be
given to the learned AGA within a week for
compliance and for onward communication
to the learned Advocate General, UP and
Principal Secretary, Law, U.P.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI,J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Special Appeal No. - 1180 of 2008

Manoj Kumar Sahu

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pranav Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.
Sri K.L. Grover
Sri Raj Kumari Devi
Sri I.S. Tomar
Sri Ramesh Singh

Industrial
Dispute
Act
1947-Section
2(5), 10-Refusal of reference by Central
Govt. on ground of delay-held not
proper-industrial
dispute
a
welfare
legislation for settlement of disputes
between employees and employer-only
the Labor Court or Industrial tribunal
Court can consider this aspect-Central
Govt. can not be allowed to stepped into
the shoes of Labor Court or Tribunalorder
not
sustainable-consequential
direction given.

Held: Para 10

As regards question of limitation is
concerned, it is for the Labour Court to
grant relief or not to grant relief taking
into consideration the question of delay.
The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare
legislation for settlement of industrial
dispute between an employer and the
employee. Even an apprehended dispute
can be referred what to say of an
existing
dispute.
In
our
considered
opinion, suffice it to say that as the
Central Government has refused to refer
the dispute by adjudicating upon the
matter itself it has stepped into the
shoes of the Labour Court, or the
Industrial Tribunal or the appropriate
Board, we quash the impugned order
dated 18.6.2002 as well as the judgment
and order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 32844 of 2003, Manoj
Kumar Sahu versus Union of India and
others.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1970 SC-1205; AIR 1959 SC-1217

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J. )

1. Heard Sri Pranav Ojha, learned
counsel for the appellant, Sri I.S. Tomar,
Advocate holding brief of Smt. Raj Kumari
Devi, learned counsel appearing for the
Union of India, respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri
K.L. Grover, Advocate assisted by Sri
Ramesh
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent nos. 3 and 4, learned Standing
counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and
6 and perused the record.

2. This special appeal is preferred
against the judgment and order dated
25.7.2008 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
32844 of 2003, Manoj Kumar Sahu versus
Union of India and others whereby the
aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed.
1 All] Manoj Kumar Sahu V. The Union of India and others

153

3.

The
judgment
and
order
impugned is assailed on the ground that
the learned Single Judge has misdirected
himself in construing Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 does not prescribe any time limit for
making a reference.

4. It is lastly urged that the learned
Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the
judgment rendered in M/s Western India
Watch
Company
Limited
versus
Western
India
Watch
Company
Workers Union, AIR 1970 SC-1205,
wherein the Apex Court has held that the
dispute could even be referred at any
time. The judgment rendered in M/s
Shalimar Works Limited versus Their
Workmen, AIR 1959 SC-1217 has also
been relied upon.

5. Relying upon the aforesaid
judgments, learned Single Judge has held
that-

"There has to be a reasonable period
when a dispute could be referred for
adjudication. The provisions of Section 10
of the Industrial Dispute Act means that
an industrial dispute could be referred at
any time or at any stage provided such
industrial dispute exists. The words
"exists" or "is apprehended" in Section 10
has to be read along with the words "at
any time". If the dispute does not exist nor
is apprehended, the question of referring a
dispute would not arise.

In the present case, the Central
Government has given a categorical
finding that no valid explanation has been
given for condoning the delay. It is
necessarily means that there existed no
industrial dispute and that the Central
Government was satisfied that on account
of long lapse of time, no industrial dispute
existed and therefore, declined to refer the
dispute. The Court is of the opinion that
the order of the Central Government
declining to refer the dispute does not
suffer from any error of law.

The writ petition is dismissed."

6. We have perused the order dated
18.6.2002 passed by the Under Secretary,
Union of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi by which he has refused to refer the
dispute as according to him Industrial
dispute did exist as the disputant failed to
establish existence of a valid dispute to
the effect that he was engaged by the bank
during the period from 18.4.1993 to
19.11.1994 on continuous basis and that
his services were terminated/discontinued
thereafter and further that the dispute has
been raised belatedly without giving any
reasonable explanation for the delay. The
order refusing to refer the dispute reads
thus:-

" The disputant failed to establish
existence of a valid dispute to the effect
that he was engaged by the bank during
the period from 18.4.1993 to 19.11.1994
on continuous basis and that his services
were terminated/discontinued thereafter,
further, the present dispute has been
raised belatedly without giving any
reasonable explanation for the delay."

7. From perusal of the order passed
by the under Secretary, Union of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, it is
apparent that the Central Government was
of the opinion that the workman had
failed to establish existence of a valid
dispute to the effect that he was engaged
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

by the bank during the period w.e.f.
18.4.1993 to 19.11.1994.

8. Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 pertains to reference of
disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals
and provides that where the appropriate
Government is of the opinion that any
industrial dispute exists or is apprehended,
it may at any time by order in writing refer
the dispute to the appropriate Board, Court
or Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.

9. It is settled law that the Central
Government
is
not
empowered
to
adjudicate upon the matter for the purpose
of referring the dispute. It is for the
workman to establish that he was
employed by the bank during the period
w.e.f. 18.4.1993 to 19.11.1994 and that a
valid dispute existed or was apprehended.
It is also apparent that the Central
Government did not refer the dispute
considering as to whether any dispute was
apprehended or existed. The validity of
dispute cannot be determined by him as it
is a matter of adjudication.

10. As regards question of limitation
is concerned, it is for the Labour Court to
grant relief or not to grant relief taking into
consideration the question of delay. The
Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare
legislation for settlement of industrial
dispute between an employer and the
employee. Even an apprehended dispute
can be referred what to say of an existing
dispute. In our considered opinion, suffice
it to say that as the Central Government
has refused to refer the dispute by
adjudicating upon the matter itself it has
stepped into the shoes of the Labour Court,
or
the
Industrial
Tribunal
or
the
appropriate Board, we quash the impugned
order dated 18.6.2002 as well as the
judgment and order dated 25.7.2008
passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 32844 of 2003,
Manoj Kumar Sahu versus Union of India
and others.

11. Since the matter has been
lingering on since 1994 before the
Regional Conciliation Officer and before
the Court in writ petition as well as in
special appeal, we deem it expedient in the
interest of justice to direct the authority
concerned to refer the dispute to the
appropriate Labour Court or the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Central Government within
a period of one month from today.

12. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL,J

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1359 of 2012

Ashok Kumar

 ....Applicant
Versus.
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P.Srivastava
Sri J.P. Singh.

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail Application-offence under section
302 IPC-deceased developed love affairs
with daughter of applicant-with sole
purpose to entice away the daughter
altercation took place-deceased shoot
dead
the
son
of
applicant-wife
of