Unexplained eight-year delay warrants dismissal of a writ challenging a labour award.

An incident concerning payment of bonus occurred at Monabari Tea Estate on 24 September 2005 and allegedly involved police firing.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 11 workers; suspensions of eight were withdrawn, while proceedings against three workers culminated in dismissal orders dated 5 December 2006.

The present workman, Tilok Tosa, challenged the dismissal through the petitioner-union.

The Labour Court, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 11/2018, upheld the dismissal by an Award dated 15 November 2010.

The Union challenged the Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, principally contending that it was passed ex parte, that the workman’s advocate had died without notice being issued to the Union, and that the domestic enquiry violated natural justice and was vitiated by bias.

The Management contended that the workman had participated in the enquiry and cross-examined witnesses, and that fresh notice of the Labour Court proceedings had been duly served before the matter was taken up ex parte.

Whether the domestic enquiry and the resultant dismissal were vitiated by violation of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, or bias.

Whether the Labour Court acted unlawfully in proceeding ex parte and passing the Award dated 15 November 2010 after the workman’s advocate had ceased to appear.

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches of approximately eight years.

The Court exercised its supervisory and constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examining principally the fairness of the decision-making process rather than reappreciating the entire disciplinary case.

The principles of natural justice require a workman to receive a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in a domestic enquiry; however, where the record demonstrates participation, cross-examination of witnesses, and adequate opportunity, the enquiry is not invalid merely because the workman was dissatisfied with its conduct.

A Labour Court may proceed ex parte where proper notice has been served and the party nevertheless fails to appear; the relevant consideration is whether reasonable opportunity was afforded.

The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006, for the principle that although the Limitation Act does not strictly govern Article 226 proceedings, unreasonable delay and laches may justify refusal of relief, with the statutory limitation period serving as a reasonable benchmark.

The Court also noted the principles in Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangha, (2004) 8 SCC 200, Muriadih Colliery v. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, (2005) 3 SCC 331, and L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd., (2006) 2 SCC 269, concerning serious workplace misconduct and the proportionality of dismissal.

The Court found that the workman had participated in the domestic enquiry and had cross-examined the Management’s witnesses; the pleadings did not substantiate the later assertion that he was denied a defence assistant or a meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

The allegation of bias was also rejected because the dismissal order had been issued by another officer; the signature of the Senior Manager allegedly involved in the incident appeared only in connection with service of the order.

Regarding the ex parte Award, the Labour Court initially fixed the matter for preliminary hearing on 4 November 2009, subsequently issued fresh notice to the Union on 28 May 2010, verified service through the returned acknowledgment card on 3 August 2010, and only thereafter ordered the matter to proceed ex parte on 18 August 2010.

The Court distinguished M/s South Assam Roadways Ltd. v. State of Assam, 2024 Supreme (Gau) 1549, because that case involved uncertainty regarding service, whereas service was established in the present matter.

Finally, the eight-year delay in challenging the 2010 Award was not reasonably explained by the assertion that the workman had been awaiting an assurance from the Management; the delay, coupled with the workman’s subsequent superannuation and the intervening developments, independently militated against discretionary writ relief.

The writ petition was also barred by substantial and inadequately explained delay and laches.

Accordingly, the challenge to the Award dated 15 November 2010 was dismissed, with costs made easy.

The Court directed that the Provident Fund payable to the workman, which the Management stated was ready for release, could be received by him.