Holding

The High Court's order is not a reasoned one and must be set aside; the Labour Court also erred by not considering the delay and statutory requirements, so the award cannot stand.

Summary

The respondent, a temporary employee, was terminated in 1974 and raised an industrial dispute only in 1992, 18 years later. The Labour Court awarded reinstatement with full back wages, finding the termination illegal, but the High Court modified the award to 50% back wages without providing reasons. The Supreme Court held that both the High Court and the Labour Court failed to give reasoned orders and did not consider essential factors such as the long delay, continuity of service under s.2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and compliance with s.6‑N. It reiterated that "delay defeats equity" and that relief must be granted judiciously, not automatically on procedural defaults. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 must give a reasoned order when modifying a Labour Court award.
Whether the Labour Court award of reinstatement with full back wages is justified given the 18‑year delay in raising the industrial dispute.
Whether the workman is entitled to relief under s.2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and s.6‑N of the same Act.
Whether the principle that "delay defeats equity" bars the grant of relief in this case.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2(g), s. 6-N

Subjects

industrial disputelabour courtreinstatementback wagesdelayreasoned orderArticles 226/227U.P. Industrial Disputes ActSection 2(g)Section 6-Nequity

Judgment

-)_
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY, MANGALORE A
v.
PAHALSINGH

APRIL 10, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B
~

~
Judgment/Order:

Reasoned order-Award passed by Labour Court-Upheld in writ
petition, by High Court with modification in quantum of back wages without c
giving reasons-On appeal, held: High Court while exercising power under
Arts.226 and 227 has to apply its mind to contentions raised hy parties and
give reasoned order-High Court's order is not reasoned one and is set
aside-Constitution of India, 1950-Arts.226 and 227.

UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 194?: D
--~
s.2(g)-Terinination of workman~Before Labour Court, workman
required to prove that his termination was illegal-Merely because he filed
affidavit and employer did not file rejoinder affidavit thereto, would not
imply that award in favour ofworkman automatically follows-Labour Laws-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. E

Industrial dispute raised by workman after l 8 years-Labour Court
ordered reinstate"!ent with full back wages-Correctness of-Held,
incorrect-Delay defeats equity--Delay/laches.

.r Respondent-Workman appointed on a temporary basis was terminated F
from seniices in 1974. He raised industrial dispute in 1992. The Labour Court
directed reinstatement with full wages. While directing so, Labour Court held
that the employen have not controverted the written statement (affidavit) of
workman by filing the rejoinder alongwith affidavit and the far.ts regarding
termination of services pleaded by the workman were also not c;ontroverted G
by employers either in arguments or in evidence. Appellant preferred writ
petition wherey the High Court modified the award directipg reinstatement
- -"" with 50% back wages. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
1085 H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 4 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1. The judgment of the High Court is not a reasoned one. Why
the Award was upheld with modification in quantum of back wages has not
been stated. [Para 6) (1088-D]

2.1. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India upon issuance of a rule nisi is
B expected to apply its mind to the contentions raised by the parties and arrive
at findings thereupon. The Labour Court also committed the same error.
[Para 7 & 8) (1088-E)

2.2. The Labour Court, thus, also did not advert itself to the questions
C which were required to be gone into. The workman in the said proceedings
was required to show that the termination was illegal. Only because it filed
an affidavit and the respondent did not file any rejoinder affidavit thereto, the
same by itself would not mean that an Award would automatically follow.
(Para· 10) [1089-B)

D 2.3. The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to
whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view
of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. It is now
well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". It was obligatory on
the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent was in
E employment for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding that the
respondent was in continuous service within the meaning of s.2(g) of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act or for that matter in terminating the services of the
respondent, the appellant did not comply with the requirements of law
particularly Section 6-N thereof. In absence of such a finding, the High Court
should have interfered with the Award. [Paras 11] (1089-C-D]
F
3. The Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 1 lA
of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised
judiciously. A relief of re-instatement with all back wages is not to be given
without considering the relevant factors therefore, only because it would be
lawful to do so. In this case, even the basic requirements for grant of any
G relief had not been found by the Labour Court. {Para 13) (1089-FJ

Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kola v. Dhan Kunwar, AIR [2006] SC 2670
and Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M C. Joshi, [2007] 3
-f--
SCALE 545, relied on.

H Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Nee/am, [2005]
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY, MANGALORE v. PAHAL SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 1087

5 SCC 91 and U. P. State Electricity Board v. Rajesh Kumar, (2003) 12 SCC A
548, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1871 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2003 of the High Court of
Uttranchal at Nainital in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3112 (MIS) of2001 (Old B
No. 5878of1997).

R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar, Praveen Kumar
Pandey, D. Mahesh Babu, T. Mahipal and Pradeep Mishra for the Appellant.

P.S. Narasimah (for M/s. P.S.N. & Co.), Rajesh, Anurag Tomar, Sudha C
Gupta and T. Anamika for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. Respondent herein was appointed as Kamgar on or about 1.1.1970.
He was allegedly appointed in excess of the sanctioned strength. The post
was also not :ipproved by the Director of the Mandi Samiti. Indisputably, he
was not appointed in terms of the procedures laid down in U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 (Act) or the regulations framed
thereunder. He was again appointed on a temporary basis without approval E
of the Director as a Clerk Typist on 30. 9 .1972. One of the terms of the offer
of appointment issued in his favour was that his services could be tenninated
at any time upon giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The
Authority was informed that several such appointments have been made in
excess of the staff and that too without following the provisions of the Act F
and rules and regulations therein and also without obtaining the approval of
the Director. It was directed that the services of the persons concerned be
tenninated, by a letter dated 10.01.1974; pursuant to or in furtherance whereof,
the services of six employees including the respondent herein was terminated
on 21.1.1974. One month's notice allegedly was given therefor. It is stated that
the relevant provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were also complied G
with in relation thereto.

3. Respondent herein raised an industrial dispute on 2.5.1992. The State
of Uttar Pradesh referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour
Court, Meerut.
H

--
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2007] 4 S.C.R.

A "Whether action of employers in terminating the services of their
workman Sh. Paha! Singh, S/o Sh. Amrit Singh is ilfogal or invalid? If
· yes, then·. to what relief/compensation the concerned workman is
entitled? And with what other details?"

4. The parties before the Labour Court submitted their'respective written
B statements. Respondent adduced evidence. The Labour Court by an Award
dated 24. l 0. l 996 holding that the termination of the services of the respondent
was illegal, directed him to be re-instated in service with continuity of service
and awarded back wages for the entire period.

5. The said Award came to be questioned by the appellant herein in a
C Writ Petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By reason
of the impugned Judgment, the High Court modified the Award directing re-
instatement of the respondent with 50% of back wages.

6. At the outset, we may notice that the judgment of the High Court is
D not a reasoned one. Why the Award was upheld with modification in the
quantum of back wages has not been stated. ·

7. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India upon issuance of a rule nisi is expected
to apply its mind to the contentions raised by the parties and arrive at
E findings thereupon.

K We may notice that the learned Labour Court also committed the sarile
error.

9. It, in its Award merely stated:-
F "The workman has filed written statement with an affidavit which has
not been controverted by the employers by filing rejoinder on affidavit.,
Therefore, in these circumstances the written statement of workman
is Iiabl~ to be accepted according to Rule 12(9) of U.P. Industrial
Dispute Rule 1957. It has been clearly provided under Rule 12(9) of
G U.P. Ind.ustrial Disputes Rules 1957 that if the workman files his
written statement alongwith an affidavit, then the employers have to
file their rejoinder with the affidavit. If the employers.do not file their
rejoinder alongwith affidavit, then considering the facts oOhe written
statement filed with affidavit as correct, award will be made in favour
of workman.
H
KRISHI UTPADANMANDI SAMITY, MANGALOREv. PAHALSINGH [S.B. SINHA,J.)l 089

In the present case employers have not controverted the written A
statement (affidavit) of workman by filing the rejoinder alongwith
affidavit and the facts regarding termination of services pleaded by
the workman were also not controverted by employers either in
arguments or in evidence. In these circumstances the order terminating
the services of workman will be held illegal and invalid."
B
10. The Labour Court, thus, also did not advert itself to the questions
which were required to be gone into. The workman in the said proceedings
was required to show that the termination was illegal. Only because it filed
an affidavit and the respondent did not file any rejoinder affidavit thereto, the
same by itself would not mean that an Award would automatically follow.
c
11. The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to
whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view
of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. It was
obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent
was in employment for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding D
that the respondent was in continuous service within the meaning of Section
2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or for that matter in terminating the
services of the respondent, the appellant did not comply with the requirements
oflaw particularly Section 6-N thereof. In absence of such a finding, the High
Court in our opinion should have interfered with the Award.
E
12. It is now well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity".

13. The Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section l lA
of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised
judiciously. A relief of re-instatement with all back wages is not to be given
,.; without considering the relevant factors therefor, only because it would be F
lawful to do so. As noticed hereinbefore, in this case, even the basic
requirements for grant of any relief had not been found by the Labour Court.

14. In Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Nee/am,
[2005] 5 SCC 91 this Court opined:-
G
"18. It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction
have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties.
The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart
social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean
that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be H
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R~

A entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and
acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A
person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the
doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. The respondent her~in did not
raise any industrial dispute questioning the termination of her services
within a reasonable time. She even accepted an alternative employment
B and has been continuing therein from 10-8-1988. In her replication
filed before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while traversing
the plea raised by the appellant herein that she is gainfully employed
in HUDA with effect from 10-8-1988 and her services had been
regularised therein, it was averred:

c "6. The applicant workman had already given replication to the
ALC-cum-Conciliation Officer, stating therein that she was engaged
by HUDA from 10-8-1988 as clerk-cum-typist cm daily-wage basis.
The applicant workman has the right to come to the service of
the management and she is interested to join them."

D 19. She, therefore, did not deny or dispute that she had been-regularly
employed or her services had been regularised. She merely exercised
her right to join the service of the appellant."

15. Yet again in U.P. State Electricity Boardv. Rajesh Kumar, [2003) 12
is
SCC 548, this Court held that although a period of limitation prescribed for .
E making a reference, but facts and circumstances of each case is required to
be considered in dealing with stale claims.

16. Recently in Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kata v. Dhan Kunwar, AIR
(2006) SC 2670, it was held;

"6. It may be noted that so far as delay in seeking the reference is
F concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It
would depend on facts of each individual case."

17. See also Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. MC. Joshi,
(2007) 3 SCALE 545.

G 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed.

19. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be
no order as to costs.

H D.G. Appeal allowed.