Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3347 of 2000
PETITIONER:
Sub-Divisional Officer Telegraph, Bijnor
RESPONDENT:
The Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Kanpur and Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the
writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that an
award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (in short the ’Tribunal’) was being
assailed belatedly and the writ petition was dismissed on the
ground of laches.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not take
note of the factual background and on the erroneous
assumptions that an award of the Tribunal made in 1992 was
being belatedly challenged, the writ petition was dismissed.
He referred to several factual details which we shall deal with
infra.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in
spite of notice.
The order of the High Court reads as follows:
"The petitioner has challenged award of
1992. The petition is highly belated and is
dismissed on the ground of laches."
Factual position which is almost undisputed is that some
casual labourers raised a dispute before the Tribunal. The
appellant took the stand that the concerned labourers who
were casual workers had deliberately remained absent from
duty for more than six months. Those six persons were
engaged on daily wages basis in the Telecommunication
Department under the SDO, Bijnor. When they reported back
after their voluntary absence they were not given any benefit
for the past service and it was decided to treat them to have
joined w.e.f. 7.5.1985. The Tribunal by its award dated
17.3.1992 came to hold that there was, in fact, termination,
and there was no compliance with requirements of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the
action of the Department was illegal and unjustified.
According to the Tribunal they were entitled to reinstatement
with full back wages and consequential benefits. The
Department filed an Original Application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short ’CAT’).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The Original Application was admitted on 5.5.1993 and stay
on the direction for the payment of back wages was granted.
Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the CAT that in
view of the decision of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. The
Union of India & Others (JT 1997 (3) SC 589) the proceedings
before the CAT were not maintainable. By order dated
17.12.1997 CAT disposed of the matter holding that the
proceedings before it were not maintainable. It was, however,
inter alia observed as follows:
"Nothing in this order shall however, preclude
the applicant from seeking redressal of his
grievances from an appropriate forum."
The writ application was filed in February, 1998 and has
been dismissed as afore-noted by order dated 30.4.1998.
A perusal of the factual scenario as noted above clearly
indicates that the writ petition was not belated as was
observed by the High Court. It is unfortunate that the High
Court did not take note of the relevant factors and the
intervening circumstances and by a cryptic order dismissed
the writ application holding that it was highly belated. Had
the High Court applied its mind to the factual background
facts it could not have come to the conclusions as arrived at. It
is true, if there is abnormal delay in filing a writ petition and
there is no plausible explanation for the same, the Court can
decline to entertain it on the ground of laches. But the fact
situation is entirely different here. In paragraphs 47 to 50 of
the writ petition filed before the High Court, all relevant details
were indicated. Unfortunately, the High Court has not taken
note of that.
In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on
merits, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the
matter to it for decision on merits.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.