Reasonable Period Of Limitation Applies Where No Limitation Period Is Prescribed: Punjab & Haryana HC On Labour Court References
The Punjab And Haryana High Court held that even though the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not prescribe a limitation period for reference, the employee was duty bound to avail remedies within a reasonable time.
The Court was hearing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an Order through which the Union Government had referred an industrial dispute to a Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. In the case, the petitioner-bank had initiated disciplinary proceedings against an employee for alleged misappropriation of funds. An enquiry officer concluded against the employee and the employee was dismissed from service in 1991. He preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed in 1994. The petitioner-bank also lodged a First Information Report against the employee and the Trial Court acquitted him in 2005. After acquittal, he approached labour authorities in 2005 and upon serving a demand notice under Section 2A, the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in 2006.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that the employee had “opted to remain silent after dismissal of his appeal. He was duty bound to avail available remedies within (a) reasonable period of limitation. He could not approach labour authorities as per his convenience and sweet will."
Advocates Ranjan Lohan appeared for the petitioner-bank and Advocate Uday Agnihotri appeared for the respondent-employee.
Section 10 (Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals) of the Industrial Disputes Act, under which the reference was made in the present case, prescribes no limitation period. It says that a reference can be made “at any time” if, in the opinion of the appropriate government, an industrial dispute exists or there is an apprehension that it exists.
Section 2A (Dismissal, etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute) of the Act was amended in 2010 to prescribe that a workman can file an application within three years before the Labour Court in case of discharge or dismissal or retrenchment or termination from service. Before this amendment, a matter could be placed before the Labour Court only by way of reference by competent authority, and a workman could not approach it directly.
The High Court noted that it is a settled proposition of law that if no limitation period is prescribed, every authority is bound to act within a reasonable period of limitation. While noting that the present case related to pre-amendment era and the three-year prescription in Section 2A cannot apply here, the Court said, “cue can be taken from said prescribed period. In the absence of said period, (a) reasonable period should be applied.”
Dealing with the respondent-employee’s claim that after he was acquitted by the Trial Court, he became eligible for reinstatement, the Court said, “An employee cannot rekindle a dead claim on the ground of acquittal in criminal proceedings,” citing precedents which hold that departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct and different.
In Union Of India & Ors vs P. Gunasekaran (2014), the Supreme Court held High Courts, under Articles 226 and 227, while dealing with matters relating to disciplinary proceedings can only see whether fair and proper procedure was followed during the disciplinary proceedings and that its conclusion is not arbitrary. The High Courts, under Articles 226 and 227, cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with the conclusions, among other things.
In the present case, the Court said, the respondent-employee had demand notice under Section 2A was served "beyond a reasonable period of limitation, thus, the impugned order is bad in the eye of law.”
Cause Title: Punjab And Sind Bank v. Jai Singh And Ors [Neutral Citation 2024:PHHC:136054]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ranjan Lohan and Sahil Lohan
Respondent: Advocate Uday Agnihotri
