Court dismisses writ petition citing unreasonable delay and prior adjudication, aligning with Supreme Court precedent
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Sri Manish Kumar Pandey against the Union of India, challenging the refusal to refer his industrial dispute for adjudication. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, emphasized the principles of reasonableness and the need to avoid reviving stale disputes, in line with Supreme Court precedents.
The petitioner, Manish Kumar Pandey, had been dismissed from his position as clerk-cum-accounts clearance staff at the Bank of India following disciplinary proceedings in 2004. The dispute arose from allegations of misconduct concerning the misappropriation of funds, leading to Pandey's compulsory retirement. Despite exhausting remedies before the Appellate Authority and filing a writ petition that was dismissed in 2018, Pandey approached the court again after 13 years, seeking a referral of the dispute to an industrial tribunal.
The petitioner argued that the failure report issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, acknowledged the existence of a dispute, thus necessitating a referral for adjudication. However, the Ministry of Labour and Employment refused the referral due to the excessive delay, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, which held that stale disputes should not be revived after long periods.
Justice Gupta noted that the failure report merely recorded the existence of a dispute and did not limit the government's discretion under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to assess whether the dispute warranted referral, considering the delay and previous adjudications. The court observed that the petitioner had allowed over a decade to pass before seeking industrial adjudication and had already unsuccessfully challenged the disciplinary actions in writ jurisdiction, culminating in the dismissal of W.P. No. 7589 (W) of 2011.
The court's decision underscores the importance of timely action in industrial disputes and the discretion of the government in making referrals. Justice Gupta concluded that reopening the matter after such a significant lapse would be academic and ineffective, with evidence becoming stale over time.
The ruling reaffirms the legal principles that industrial adjudication should not revisit matters that have attained quietus and emphasizes the necessity for parties to pursue legal remedies within a reasonable timeframe. Consequently, the writ petition WPA 13720 of 2022 was dismissed, with connected applications also disposed of, and interim orders vacated.
Bottom Line:
Industrial dispute raised after an inordinate delay of 13 years from the date of termination and after exhaustion of all remedies is not fit for reference to adjudication.
Statutory provision(s): Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 10, 12(4)
Sri Manish Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849241
