SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH, BIJNORversusTHE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR AND ANR.

           /
           )-



    -1.J
                        SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH, BIJNOR                                  A
                                            v.
                 THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
                     TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR AND ANR.

                                           FEBRUARY 8. 2006
                                                                                                  B
                           [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]


                      Laches-Industrial dispute-Award by Industrial Tribunal-Original
                application thereaginst before Central Administrative Tribunal-Disposal           c
                thereof as not maintainable-Dismissal of writ application by High Court
                being highly belated-On appeal, held: Jn the facts of the case writ application
                was not belated-Matter remitted to High Court for adjudication on merit-
                Industrial disputes Act, 1947.

                      In an industrial dispute, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-           D
          :I
                cum-Labour Court passed an award in favour of workmen in 1992.
          ,.    Appellant-Department filed Original Application before Central
                Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the same was admitted. CAT disposed
                of the matter in 1997 holding that in view of the judgment in L. Chandra
                Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., JT (1997) 3 SC 589, the proceedings             E
                before it were not maintainable. Department filed Writ Application in 1998
                before High Court, and the same was dismissed on the ground of laches,
                holding that it was highly belated. Hence the present appeal.

                      Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for
                decision on merits, the Court                                                     F
     _J,
                      HELD: A perusal of the factual scenario that Original application
                was filed before Central Administrative Tribunal against the award and
                the same was disposed of as not maintainable, clearly indicates that the
                writ petition was not belated. [137-C)
                                                                                                  G
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3347 of2000.
     -I
                     From the Judgment and Order 30.4.1998 of the Allahabad High Court
)
      "·        in C.M.W.P. No. 15161/1998.
                                                                                                  H
                                                     135
    136                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A        S. Radhakrishnan, Ms. Sunita Sharma, V.K. Verma and Arvind Kumar
    Sharma with him of the Appellants.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed
B     by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition
    . filed by the appellant on the ground that an award passed by the Central
      Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (in short the
      'Tribunal') was being assailed belatedly and the writ petition was dismissed
      on the ground of !aches.
c         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the
    High Court is clearly erroneous. It did not take note of the factual background
    and on the erroneous assumptions that an award of the Tribunal made in
    1992 was being belatedly challenged, the writ petition was dismissed. He
    referred to several factual details which we shall deal with infra.
D
          There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.

          The order of the High Court reads as follows:                               •
                "The petitioner has challenged award of 1992. The petition is
E           highly belated and is dismissed on .the ground of !aches."

          Factual position which is almost undisputed is that some casual labourers
    raised a dispute before the Tribunal. The appellant took the stand that the
    concerned labourers who "'.ere casual workers had deliberately remained absent
    from duty for more than six months. Those six persons were engaged on
F   daily wages basis in the Telecommunication Department under the SDO,
    Bijnor. When they reported back after their voluntary absence they were not
    given any benefit for the past service and it was decided to treat them to have       l
    joined w.e.f. 7.5.1985. The Tribunal by its award dated 17.3.1992 came to
    hold that there was, in fact, termination, and there was no compliance with
G   requirements of Section 25-F of"the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and,
    therefore, the action of the Department was illegal and unjustified. According
    to the Tribunal they were entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and
    consequential benefits. The Department filed an Original Application before
    the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short 'CAT'). The
H   Original Applicatior. was admitted on 5.5.1993 and stay on the direction for
    the payment of back wages was granted. Subsequently, it was brought to the
               SUB-01\'ISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH. BIJNOR •·. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GO\T [PASAYAT J.)   j J7

            notice of the CAT that in view of the decision of this Court in l. Chandra                            A
            Kumar v. The Union of India & Ors., JT (1997) 3 SC 589) the proceedings
            before the CAT were not maintainable. By order dated 17.12.1997 CAT
            disposed of the matter holding that the proceedings before it were not
            maintainable. It was, however, inter alia observed as follows:

                     "Nothing in this order shall however, preclude the applicant from                            B
                     seeking redressal of his grievances from an appropriate forum."

                  The writ application was filed in February, 1998 and has been dismissed
            as afore-noted by order dated 30.4.1998.

                   A perusal of the factual scenario as noted above clearly indicates that C
            the writ petition was not belated as was observed by the High Court. It is
            unfortunate that the High Court did not take note of tile relevant factors and
            the intervening circumstances and by a cryptic order dismissed the writ
            application holding that it was highly belated. Had the High Court applied its
            mind to the factual background facts it could not have come to the conclusions D
            as arrived at. It is true, if there is abnormal delay in filing a writ petition and
            there is no plausible explanation for the same, the Court can decline to
            entertain it on the ground of !aches. But the fact situation is entirely different'
            here. In paragraphs 47 to 50 of the writ p,etition filed before the High Court;
            all relevant details were indicated. Unfortunately, the High Court has not
            taken note of that.                                                                 E
                  In the circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits, we set
            aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for decision on
            merits.

                  The appeal is allowed. No costs.                                                                F

            K.K.T.                                                                       Appeal allowed.




)   t   \