Unexplained delay can render a termination dispute stale, defeating reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The petitioner was engaged as a Time Keeper/daily-wage labourer at the Block Office, Saja.

He claimed to have worked from 5 May 1990 to 6 February 1992 and again from 8 February 1995 to 22 February 1995, after which he was allegedly retrenched without payment of retrenchment compensation despite having completed more than 240 days of service.

He approached the Labour Commissioner, who referred the dispute to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Labour Court, in Case No. 13/ I.D. Act/2013, dismissed the reference by order dated 15 October 2014, principally holding that the petitioner had approached the authorities only in 2013, nearly eighteen years after the alleged retrenchment, without satisfactorily explaining the delay.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that similarly situated employees had been reinstated and granted consequential benefits.

Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the industrial dispute as stale because the petitioner raised it nearly eighteen years after his alleged retrenchment without explaining the delay?

Whether the Labour Court’s order dated 15 October 2014 suffered from illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Whether the alleged reinstatement and grant of benefits to similarly situated employees entitled the petitioner to similar relief despite his unexplained delay?

The Court applied the principles governing stale industrial disputes under Sections 2(k) and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455, the Supreme Court held that although the Act prescribes no limitation period for making a reference, the power under Section 10 must be exercised reasonably, and a stale dispute that no longer exists cannot be referred.

Relying on Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, (2015) 15 SCC, the Court reiterated that unexplained delay may establish laches, waiver and acquiescence; a belated dispute is maintainable only if the workman satisfactorily explains the delay and demonstrates that the dispute remains alive.

The Court also relied on A.G. Chandrappagol v. Assistant Executive Engineer, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 667, which recognises that the Labour Court may reject a reference where prolonged and unexplained delay has rendered the claim stale, particularly where the delay prejudices the determination of facts and availability of evidence.

Judicial review under Article 227 is warranted only where the subordinate court’s order discloses illegality or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the petitioner’s alleged retrenchment occurred in 1995, whereas he initiated proceedings only in 2013, and that he offered no sufficient explanation for remaining inactive during the intervening period.

Applying the principles in Nedungadi Bank, Prabhakar, and A.G. Chandrappagol, the Court held that the prolonged and unexplained delay indicated that the dispute had become stale and was no longer an existing industrial dispute.

The petitioner’s reliance on the treatment given to other employees was insufficient because he had not demonstrated that he had continuously challenged his own termination or that circumstances kept the dispute alive.

Consequently, the Labour Court’s rejection of the reference was neither illegal nor jurisdictionally defective.

The alleged relief granted to similarly situated employees did not overcome the petitioner’s laches or establish a continuing industrial dispute.

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Labour Court’s order dated 15 October 2014, the Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.