# U.P.P.C.L. & Ors v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 73
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-03
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 26230 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-p-c-l-ors-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-faizabad-anr-45725
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Ishwar
Dutt
Shukla,
Mohd.
Mustafizul Haq, Santosh Kumar Mehrotra

A. Challenging-award-passed by O.P no. 1reinstating O.P no. 2-who was engaged as
workman on muster roll-and removed without
any notice-has been granted reinstatement
along with continuity of service & seniority20% back wages-on the basis of experience
certificate-issued by J.E-upon the claim made
after 10 years-not barred by limitation-in case
industrial dispute-raised by workman-Petition
Dismissed.

B. Held, having perused the Award impugned,
this Court finds that the O.P no. 1 has more or
less stuck to the settled position in law while
granting relief to the workman. It is found that
there is 10 yrs delay in starting conciliation
proceedings and therefore, 20% of the back
wages have been granted to the workman from
the date the application for conciliation
proceeding was filed by the workman till the
date of order of reinstatement. No back wages
have been granted for the 10 yrs the workman
remained out of employment with effect from
1992 to the year 2000. Moreover, the workman
concerned has been given reinstatement only
as muster roll, the original post on which he
was working and he has been given service
benefits that were similar to employees
working
on
muster
roll
in
the
same
establishment.
The
workman
was
found
entitled to continuity in service & seniority also.
This court finds no good ground to show
interference in such discretion being judiciously
exercised. Petition Dismissed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of cases cited: -

## Text

2 All. U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Anr.
73
 order of the Tribunal, the Bank could
have and rightly proceeded by filing an
application under Section 14 of the Act.

39. It cannot be said that there is no
recording of satisfaction by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate in the order impugned.

40. The petitioners have remedy against
such action and the order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned by filing an
application before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. The
Tribunal would have the benefit of pleadings
already before it in the Securitization
Application No.530 of 2019 and would be in a
better position to appreciate all aspects of the
matter.

41. Writ Jurisdiction is an extraordinary
jurisdiction and as has been observed by the
Supreme Court in Satyawati Tandon (supra),
such extraordinary jurisdiction ought not to be
exercised in matters where adequate statutory
remedy is available.

42. The writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable on the grounds of availability of
statutory remedy alone and the petitioners
may, if they so advised, file an appeal before
the appropriate forum.

43. Any observation made by this Court
on the merits of the order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate may not be read against the
petitioners as they may be able to satisfy the
appellate authority that the order had been
passed on misrepresentation of facts by the
Bank.
----------
(2020)02ILR A73
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 26230 of 2016

U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Mata Prasad Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Ishwar
Dutt
Shukla,
Mohd.
Mustafizul Haq, Santosh Kumar Mehrotra

A. Challenging-award-passed by O.P no. 1reinstating O.P no. 2-who was engaged as
workman on muster roll-and removed without
any notice-has been granted reinstatement
along with continuity of service & seniority20% back wages-on the basis of experience
certificate-issued by J.E-upon the claim made
after 10 years-not barred by limitation-in case
industrial dispute-raised by workman-Petition
Dismissed.

B. Held, having perused the Award impugned,
this Court finds that the O.P no. 1 has more or
less stuck to the settled position in law while
granting relief to the workman. It is found that
there is 10 yrs delay in starting conciliation
proceedings and therefore, 20% of the back
wages have been granted to the workman from
the date the application for conciliation
proceeding was filed by the workman till the
date of order of reinstatement. No back wages
have been granted for the 10 yrs the workman
remained out of employment with effect from
1992 to the year 2000. Moreover, the workman
concerned has been given reinstatement only
as muster roll, the original post on which he
was working and he has been given service
benefits that were similar to employees
working
on
muster
roll
in
the
same
establishment.
The
workman
was
found
entitled to continuity in service & seniority also.
This court finds no good ground to show
interference in such discretion being judiciously
exercised. Petition Dismissed.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of cases cited: -

1. Asst. Engineer, Raj. Development Corp. &
Anr vs Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136

2. Uttaranchal Forest Development Corp. vs
M.C Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353

3. Mahboob Deepak vs Nagar Panchayat
Gajraula & Anr (2008) 1 SCC 575

4. Devinder Singh vs Municipal Corp. Sanaur
(2011) 6 SCC 584

5.
Harijinder
Singh
vs
Punjab
State
Warehousing Corp. (2010) 3 SCC 192

6. Ajaib Singh vs Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cumprocessing Service Society Ltd 1999(6)SCC 82

7. Employers, in re Mgt. of Sudamdih Colliery of
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs their Workmen
by Rashtriya olliery Majdoor Sangh 2006 (108)
FLR 740

8. Ram Lakhan Singh vs P.O. Labour Court, Vns
1999 (2) UPLBEC 1226

9. UOI vs Sri Ram Mishra 2008 (26) LCD 1504

10. Jai Bhagwan vs Mgt. of Ambala Central
Coop. Bank Ltd AIR 1984 SC 286

11. H.M.T Ltd. vs Labour Court, Ernakulam
1994 Lab LR 720 (SC)

12. Ram Chander Morya vs St. of Haryana 1999
(1) SCT 141

13. Nedungadi Bank Ltd vs K.P Madhavankutty
2000 (84) FLR 673 (SC)

14. Jasmer Singh vs St. of Haryana 2015 (4)
SCC 458
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioners challenging the Award dated
13.07.2016 passed by the opposite party
no.1 in Adjudication Case No.90 of 2001
(U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs.
Rakesh Singh).

3. The petitioners represented by Shri
Ajay Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Shri
Mata Prasad Yadav, have submitted that
the opposite party no.2, Rakesh Singh, was
engaged as Muster Roll Daily Wage
Employee with effect from 10.05.1987 and
continued upto 28.04.1990 on which date
he abandoned the services and there was
no order of termination passed. After ten
years, the opposite party no.2 raised an
Industrial
dispute.
The
petitioners
submitted before the Conciliation Officer
that no proceedings can be initiated after a
lapse of ten years. The Conciliation failed
and thereafter, a Reference was made by
the Government to the opposite party no.1
as to whether the termination of the
opposite party no.2 on 28.04.1990 was
justified and if not justified, then to what
relief the opposite party no.2 was entitled
to? Notice was issued to the petitioners
and they filed a written statement wherein
they again stated that opposite party no.2
had raised the Industrial dispute in the year
2010, although he alleges to have been
terminated
without
notice
and
retrenchment
compensation
on
28.04.1990. The petitioners also denied the
claim of the workman that he was paid his
wages for three years and issued an
Experience Certificate by the Junior
Engineer concerned. It was the case of the
petitioners that the opposite party no.2
could not have been engaged as the
Department had stopped engaging Muster
Roll employees since 01.07.1979.
2 All. U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Anr.
75

4. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
opposite party no.1 arbitrarily has allowed
the claim raised by the opposite party no.2
only on the basis of Experience Certificate
issued by the Junior Engineer. The
Executive Engineer was the appointing
Authority and had been declared as the
Competent
Officer
to
issue
such
Experience Certificate. No records relating
to the work done by the opposite party
no.2 were available in the office of the
petitioners and the opposite party no.1 on
their failure to produce record had drawn
adverse inference against the petitioners.

5. After arguing at some length on
the merits of the Award and the
observations made by the opposite party
no.1 that despite an application made by
the opposite party no.2 for summoning of
records, the Corporation had failed to do
the same, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has fairly limited his arguments
only
to
the
question
of
delay
in
entertaining the claim petition by the
opposite party no.1.

6. It has been submitted that the
opposite party no.2 allegedly worked only
for three years in between 1987-1990 and
he raised an Industrial dispute only in the
year 2000, when there was no subsisting
dispute between the parties. No reference
could have been made by the Government
on the delayed application of the opposite
party no.2. Yet the claim petition was
entertained and orders were passed for
reinstatement of the opposite party no.2
with continuity in service and seniority
and other consequential benefits arising
therefrom. Back wages however, were
limited to 20% by the opposite party no.1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan
Development Corporation and Another
Vs. Gitam Singh reported in (2013) 5
SCC 136 to state that the delay defeats the
claim made by the workmen. This Court
has been led through several paragraphs of
the judgment in Gitam Singh (Supra) to
say that even if the services of a workman
are terminated in violation of the provision
of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act (In Pari Materia with Section
25-F of the Central Industrial Dispute
Act), the grant of relief of reinstatement
and full back wages and continuity of
service in favour of retrenched workmen
would not automatically follow, as a
matter of course. The Supreme Court has
in most of the cases modified the Award of
reinstatement
and
granted
monetary
compensation to the workman instead.

8.

In
Uttranchal
Forest
Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi
reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353, the
Supreme Court was concerned with a daily
wager who worked in the Corporation
from 01.08.1989 to 24.11.1991, and whose
services were held to be terminated in
violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Act.
The Labour Court had directed the
reinstatement of the workmen with 50%
back wages from the date the Industrial
dispute was raised. While setting aside the
order of reinstatement and back wages, the
Supreme
Court
had
Awarded
compensation
of
Rs.75,000/-
to
the
workmen keeping in view the nature of
service rendered by him, the period of
service as also the fact that the Industrial
dispute was raised after six years.
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Similarly, in the case of Mahboob
Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula
and Another reported in (2008) 1 SCC
575, the Supreme Court had observed that
an order of retrenchment passed in
violation of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Dispute Act may be set aside,
but an order of reinstatement should not
however, be automatically passed. The
Court observed in Paragraphs 11 & 12 of
the report as follows:-

The High Court, on the other
hand, did not consider the effect of non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 6N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Appellant was entitled to compensation
notice and notice pay. It is now well
settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court that in a situation of this nature
instead
and
in
place
of
directing
reinstatement with full back wages, the
workmen should be granted adequate
monetary compensation. (Madhya Pradesh
Administration V. Tribhuban reported in
2007 (5) SCALE 397.)"

10. The Supreme Court observed
further in the said judgment that in
Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council,
Sanaur, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584
and Harijinder Singh Vs. Punjab State
Warehousing Corporation reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 192, cited before it by the
learned counsel, the Court was not dealing
with a daily wage worker. It had come on
record that the workmen so engaged, had
worked for more than 240 days in a
Calendar year preceding the termination of
their services, without termination being
made in accordance with the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Central Act.

11. It observed in Paragraph 29 of
the report that both Devinder Singh
(Supra) and Harjinder Singh (Supra) do
not lay down the general proposition that
in all cases of wrongful termination
reinstatement must follow. The Supreme
Court clarified that in those cases the
judicial discretion exercised by the Labour
Court was disturbed by the High Court on
a
wrong
assumptions
that
initial
employment of the employee was illegal.

12. The Supreme Court observed
further in Paragraph 29 of the report in
Gitam Singh that it had in a long line of
cases held that the award of reinstatement
cannot be said to be proper relief, rather
award of compensation in such cases
would be in consonance with the demand
of justice. Before exercising its judicial
discretion, the Labour Court had to keep in
view of relevant factors, including the
mode and manner of appointment, nature
of employment, length of service, the
ground on which the termination had been
set aside and the delay in raising the
industrial dispute before grant of relief in
an industrial dispute. The Court had
distinguished repeatedly between a daily
wager who does not hold a post and a
permanent employee and held that where
the daily wager had merely worked for
more than 240 days in a year, the relief of
reinstatement should not be given and
monetary compensation would meet the
ends of justice.

13. The opposite party no.2 is
represented by Ms. Priyam Mehrotra,
holding brief of Shri S.K. Mehrotra. She
has placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative
Marketing-Cum-Processing
Service
Society
Ltd.
And
Another
reported in 1999 (6) SCC 82, and also on
Employers,
In
Relation
to
The
2 All. U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Anr.
77
Management of Sudamdih Colliery of
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Their
Workmen by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh Reported in [2006 (108) FLR 740]
and judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of
this Court rendered in Ram Lakhan Singh
Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P.
Varanasi & Others reported in 1999 (2)
UPLBEC 1226, Union of India and
Others Vs. Sri Ram Misra and Another
reported in 2008 (26) LCD 1504.

14.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners in rejoinder has placed reliance
upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate
Bench
of
this
Court
on
19.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.675 (M/S)
2017.

15. This Court having heard the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, has gone through the
Award rendered by the opposite party
no.1.

16. It was the case of the opposite party
no.2 that he had been engaged as Daily Wage
Muster
Roll
Employee
in
Electricity
Distribution Division, Gonda, at its sub Station
Colonelganj, by one Shri Prakash Sharma,
Junior Engineer, and he had been paid his
wages on Muster Roll by the Junior Engineer
concerned
upto
29.04.1990
but
was
discontinued
thereafter
without
any
retrenchment compensation and in violation of
Section 6-N of the Act whereas his Juniors
Sarvshri Brahmanand, Shivraj and other
workmen continued to remain in service
thereafter on Muster Roll. New workers on
Muster Roll were also engaged, therefore,
there was a violation of Section 6-P and
Section 6-Q also.

17. When the petitioners made several
representations to his Employers and they were
not paying any heed, he approached the
Conciliation Officer in the year 2000 and on
Conciliation proceedings having failed, the
Reference has been made by the Government
to the opposite party no.1.

18. The Employers had submitted before
the Labour Court that since 01.02.1979 there
was a ban on engaging daily wagers, therefore,
there could not be any engagement of any
daily wager like the opposite party no.2, and
therefore there could not be any question of
dis-engagement as alleged on 28.04.1990. It
was also stated that sometimes daily wagers
were indeed engaged but their engagement
was on daily basis and on completion of work,
they automatically were disengaged, no
termination orders were passed. It was also
stated by the Employers before the opposite
party no.1 that a Junior Engineer was not
competent to engage the petitioner as Daily
wager and he could not have issued any
Experience Certificate to him.

19. The workman in rejoinder had
stated that he was given his wages on
Voucher Form No.28 and was issued
an Experience Certificate by the Junior
Engineer, Shri Prakash Sharma, and
that he had worked for more than 240
days in the preceding twelve months to
his termination and that the Attendance
Register and the Payment Register be
summoned which is available in the
office of the Executive Engineer.

20.

His
application
for
summoning the record was resisted by
the Employer even though an order
was passed by the Labour Court for
summoning the same. It was alleged by
the Employer that since the records were
quite old, they had been weeded out. The
Employer, however, did not produce any
evidence even after it being summoned by
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Labour Court, to show that such
records had indeed be weeded out.

21. The opposite party no.1 has
drawn the adverse inference on this ground
saying that in all Government Departments
including the Corporation which is a
Government Company, a Register is
maintained mentioning the records that
have been weeded out. No such Register
was produced to substantiate their claim
that due to passage of time the old records
had been weeded out.

22. The opposite party no.1 has also
referred to
statement of Employer's
witness
no.1
Shri
Prakash
Chandra
Gangwal, Executive Engineer, Electricity
Distribution Division, Gonda, who stated
on Oath that there was no engagement on
Muster Roll Employee after 01.02.1979,
but on cross-examination it was admitted
by him that he had been working as an
Executive
Engineer
in
the
Division
concerned only since 26.07.2008. The
workers at the Sub-Station at Colonelganj,
were supervised by the Junior Engineer
and that he had not seen the record
maintained at Sub-station at Colonelganj,
with regard to the working of daily
wagers.

23. The opposite party no.1 after
considering the evidence recorded a
finding that Board had issued an order on
25.02.1981 directing that Muster Roll
Daily Wager may be engaged to do the
work which was earlier being performed
by the Contract Labourers, and that the
Executive Engineer was designated as
Competent Officer to issue Experience
Certificate only in November, 1990, by the
Board. The Experience Certificate issued
to the opposite party no.2 was dated
30.04.1990. Having came to a definite
conclusion on the basis of evidence
produced by the opposite party no.2, that
he had been engaged as Daily Wage
Muster Roll Employee and worked for
more than 240 days in the preceding year,
the Labour Court found his termination to
have been done without paying him
retrenchment compensation.

24. With regard to the delay in
initiating
the
Industrial
dispute,
the
opposite party no.1 relied upon the Ajaib
Singh (Supra) and also a judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in 2006
(108) FLR 740. This Court finds that the
citations mentioned by the opposite party
no.1 in the Award impugned for example
2006 (108) FLR 740 is non-existent, there
may have been typographical error in
recording the same.

25. Having found the termination of
the opposite party no.2 to be in Violation
of Section 6-N of the Act. The opposite
party no.1 directed for reinstatement of the
opposite party no.2 with effect from
30.04.1990 as Muster Roll Coolie and
observed that since the opposite party no.2
had initiated the conciliation proceedings
only on 03.01.2000, he may be given only
20% of the back wages with effect from
03.01.2000,
till
the
date
of
his
reinstatement. However, he was entitled to
continuity in service and seniority and all
benefits that have been given by the
employers to similarly placed daily wage
Muster Roll Employee in the meantime.

26. This Court shall now consider the
judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 namely Ajaib
Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative MarketingCum-Processing
Service
Society
Ltd.
(Supra). In the said judgment the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed, on the basis
2 All. U.P.P.C.L. & Ors. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Faizabad & Anr.
79
of the history of Labour Legislation
including the Statement of Objects and
reasons of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947, that Article 137 of the Limitation
Act had not been specifically made
applicable to the proceedings under the
Industrial Disputes Act or to seeking a
reference of Industrial Dispute to the
Labour Court. It observed that the
Legislature
had
intended
to
protect
workmen
against
victimization
and
exploitation by the employer and to ensure
termination of industrial disputes in a
peaceful manner. The object of the Act,
therefore, is to give succour to weaker
sections of the society which is a prerequisite for a welfare State.

27. The Supreme Court referred to
judgment rendered earlier by it where it
had been observed that the provisions of
the Limitation Act applied only to
proceedings in Courts and not to Appeals
or applications before the bodies other
than Courts, such as a quasi-judicial
Tribunal,
or
Executive
Authorities,
notwithstanding the fact that such bodies
or authorities may be vested within certain
specified powers conferred on Courts
under the Codes of Civil or Criminal
Procedure.

28. The Supreme Court observed that
in Jai Bhagwan V. Management of the
Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
reported in AIR 1984 SC 286, the
Supreme Court had declined to set aside
the order of reinstatement of the workman
who was found to be wrongly terminated,
but having regard to the fact that he had
raised the Industrial dispute after a
considerable delay without doing anything
in the meanwhile, he was not awarded
back wages. The grant of half back wages
from the date of termination of service
until the date of the order and full back
wages from that date till his reinstatement
was found in the circumstances to meet the
ends of justice.

29. In H.M.T. Ltd. V. Labour Court,
Ernakulam, reported in 1994 Lab LR 720
(SC), the Supreme Court observed in
respect of claim of full back wages that
where there was a delay of 14 years in
invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour
Court, grant of 60% of back wages upon
reinstatement of the workman would meet
the ends of justice. It was moreover,
observed in Paragraph 10 of the judgment
rendered in Ajaib Singh (Supra) that the
plea of delay if raised by the employer is
required to be proved as a matter of fact by
showing the real prejudice and not as a
merely hypothetical defence. No reference
to the Labour Court can be generally
questioned on the ground of delay alone.
Even in a case where the delay is shown to
be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or
the Board, dealing with the case can
appropriately mould the relief by declining
to grant wages to the workman till the date
he raised the demand regarding his illegal
retrenchment/ termination or dismissal. In
some
cases,
the
Court
may
grant
compensation instead of part of back
wages.

30. Referring to a Full Bench
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Ram Chander Morya V. State of
Haryana High Court reported in (1999) 1
SCT 141, which was cited by the
respondent counsel in Ajaib Singh (Supra),
the Supreme Court observed that :-

"We are of the opinion that the
Punjab and Haryana High Court was not
justified in prescribing the limitation for
getting
the
reference
made
or
an
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application under Section 37-C of the Act
to be adjudicated. It is not the function of
the Court to prescribe the limitation where
the Legislature in its wisdom had thought
it fit not to prescribe any period. The
courts admittedly interpret law and do not
make laws, Personal views of the Judges
presiding the Court cannot be stretched to
authorize them to interpret law in such a
manner which would amount to legislation
intentionally left over by the Legislature.
The judgment of the Full Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court has
completely ignored the object of the Act
and various pronouncements of this Court
as noted hereinabove and thus is not a
good law on the point of the applicability
of the period of limitation for the purposes
of
invoking
the
jurisdiction of
the
Courts/Boards and Tribunal under the
Act".

31. The Supreme Court further
observed that in the facts of the case in
Ajaib Singh (Supra), the Tribunal ought to
have moulded the relief and held that
instead of the order of full back wages to
be paid it should have given only part of
the back wages for the unexplained delay
in approaching the Labour Court.

32. Similar observations have been
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Employers,
In
Relation
to
The
Management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Supra). The
Supreme Court considered the judgments
rendered by it in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. V.
K.P. Madhavankutty reported in 2000
(84) FLR 673 (SC) in Paragraph 7 of the
report, Paragraph 7 in Sudamdih Colliery
(Supra) is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"Law does not prescribe any
time limit for the appropriate Government
to exercise its powers under Section 10 of
the Act It is not that this power can be
exercised at any point of time and to revive
matters which had since been settled
Power is to be exercised reasonably and in
a rational manner. There appears to us to
be no rational basis on which the Central
Government has exercised powers in this
case after lapse of about seven years of
order dismissing the respondent from
service. At the time reference was made no
industrial dispute existed or could be even
said to have been apprehended. A dispute
which is stale could not be the subjectmatter of reference under Section 10 of the
Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be
stale would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. When the
matter has become final, it appears to us
to be rather incongruous that the reference
be made under Section 10 of the Act in the
circumstances like the present one. In fact
it could be said that there was no dispute
pending at the time When the reference in
question was made. The only ground
advanced by the respondent was that two
other employees who were dismissed from
service were reinstated. Under what
circumstances they were dismissed and
subsequently
reinstated
is
nowhere
mentioned.
Demand
raised
by
the
respondent for raising industrial dispute
was ex facie bad and incompetent."

33. In the two Co-ordinate Bench
decisions of this Court cited by the learned
counsel for the respondent more or less the
same settled position in law has been
reiterated with regard to delay on the part
of the workman in approaching the Labour
Court and raising a dispute.

34. This Court has also found in
Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana
reported in 2015 (4) SCC 458, The
2 All. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Court of A.D.J./Spl. Judge P.C. Act-VII, Lko & Anr.
81
 Supreme Court has relied upon in Ajaib
Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative (Supra) and
reiterated that any limitation as prescribed
under the Limitation Act would not apply
in case an Industrial dispute is raised by a
workman. No Reference to a Labour Court
can be generally questioned on the ground
of delay alone. In Raghuveer Singh Vs.
General
Manager,
Haryana
State
Roadways
Corporation,
Ajaib
Singh
(Supra) has again been relied upon to hold
that the question of limitation would not
apply, although the Labour Court may
have the discretion to mould the relief in
case the workman approaches the Court
with delay.

35. Having perused the Award
impugned, this Court finds that the
opposite party no.1 has more or less stuck
to the settled position in law while
granting relief to the workman. It is found
that there was 10 years delay in starting
conciliation proceedings and therefore,
20% of the back wages have been granted
to the workman from the date the
application for conciliation proceedings
was filed by the workman till the date of
order for reinstatement. No back wages
have been granted for the ten years the
workman remained out of employment
with effect from 1992 to the year 2000.
Moreover, the workman concerned has
been given reinstatement only as Muster
Roll Coolie, the original post on which he
was working and he has been given
service benefits that were similar to
employees working on Muster Roll in the
same Establishment. The workman was
found entitled to continuity in service and
seniority also.

36. The Labour Court having
exercised its discretion judiciously in
giving relief to the workman, this Court
finds no good ground to show interference
in such discretion being judiciously
exercised.

37. This Court has also perused the
order-sheet. When the writ petition was
initially admitted by this Court on
03.11.2016, the impugned Award had been
stayed on the condition that the opposite
party no.2 shall be reinstated in service by
the petitioner. It has not been disputed by
the opposite party no.2 that he has not
been reinstated in service on the basis of
such conditional interim order.

38. This writ petition is, therefore,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A81
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Misc. Single No. 32181 of 2019

Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Court of A.D.J./Spl. Judge P.C. Act-VII,
Lko & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pal
Singh
Yadav,
Chandra
Shekhar
Pandey, Prathama Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

A. Prevention of corruption Act, 1988-Secs. 7,
13(1)(d) & 13(2)-Code of Cr. Procedure-Secs.
205 (2) & 317(1)-Petitioner-aggrieved byrecording of examination-in-chief-of PW1-in the
absence of petitioner and his counsel-normal
rule-evidence shall be taken-in presence of
accused-in his absence-his counsel must be
present-Petition Allowed.