Tribunal directed to decide industrial reference on merits where previous directions based on clerical errors became redundant.

An industrial dispute arose in Mahakali Tea Estate following a notice to change service conditions and discontinue pensionary benefits for retired staff effective 15.09.2020.

The Government of Assam referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In a previous coordinate bench ruling (19.09.2022), the Tribunal was directed to determine the binding effect of a specific agreement dated 06.10.1969.

The Petitioner later claimed no such agreement existed, describing the date as a clerical error, leading to a stalemate where the Tribunal repeatedly directed the Petitioner to seek clarification from the High Court.

Due to non-compliance and delays, the Tribunal passed an order on 20.04.2026, demanding corporate compliance documents (under Sections 77, 78, and 85 of the Companies Act, 2013) from the management under threat of a ₹50,000 fine.

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated 20.04.2026, directing the production of Companies Act compliance documents and imposing costs, is sustainable given the procedural impasse regarding the 1969 agreement.

2. Whether the reference proceedings, pending for five years, should be further stayed for clarification of clerical errors.

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the reference of disputes to Boards, Courts, or Tribunals.

Legislative mandate for the expeditious disposal of reference proceedings, preferably within six months.

Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning the binding nature of settlements and awards on parties to an industrial dispute.

The Court observed that the reference proceedings had been stalled for nearly five years, despite the statutory preference for a six-month resolution.

The Court found that the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated 20.04.2026—which required the management to produce unrelated corporate filings and threatened costs—was an attempt to force compliance with a redundant direction.

The Court reasoned that since the underlying requirement to verify the 1969 agreement was impossible (due to the agreement’s non-existence), the Tribunal’s demand for company records was unnecessary for the adjudication of the actual industrial dispute.

The Court determined that the most effective course of action was to bypass the clerical confusion and direct a merit-based disposal of the original reference.

The Court directed the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, to proceed immediately with the disposal of Reference Case No. 2/2021 on its merits, ignoring the previous directions regarding the non-existent 1969 agreement.