Tata Steel Limited (Earlier known as Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.) vs Concerned Workman

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

I.A.No. 8690 of 2017 The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for early hearing of W.P.(L)No.2121 of 2008.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this Interlocutory Application as the matter has already been taken up.

Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is dismissed as withdrawn.

W.P. (L). No. 2121 of 2008 Heard the parties at length.

Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Manish Mishra vociferously argues that the reference is itself bad in law because of stale claim and as such order dated 21.06.2007 (at Annexure-3) be quashed as dispute is not maintainable and the reference is invalid in view of stale claim made after more than 8 years from the date of discharge and 3 years from the date of acquittal.

Learned Sr. Counsel to buttress his argument heavily placed reliance on the decision of a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in case of "Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vrs. K.P. Madhavankutty, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455. The crux of the observation in the said decision is the following:-

"A dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference under Section 10 of the (ID) Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposing the contention of learned Sr. Counsel argues that much water has flown after the said judgment came into force.

Mr. Rahul Gupta places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Sapan Kumar Pandit vrs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 222.

Further Mr. Gupta places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Raghubir Singh vrs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar", reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301. The Hon'ble Apex Court had held that:

"The State Government had rightly exercised its power and referred the dispute to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. Thus we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer."

However, Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Management submits that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case as it is distinguishable on several points.

At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, put up this case on Monday i.e. on 24.08.2020.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.