Madan Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors.

The Judgment of the Court was ddivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted. Appellant Madan Pal Singh is aggrieved by judgment dated October G · 7, 1998 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ petition he had challenged the Awdfd dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad holding that there is no industrial dispute between him and the New Okhla In- dustrial Development Authority (NOIDA) Ghaziabad. H 72 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R. By order dat..:d September 16, 1988 State of U .P. referred the fol­ lowing question for adjudication by the Labour Court:- ''Whether the termination dated July 7, 1986 by the manage­ ment employers of the workman Sri Madan Lal work agent is justified and kgal'I If not, to what relief the workman is entitled.'' Labour Court, it appears, after recording all the evidence came to the conclusion that the management, i.t:,, NOIDA nevt:r employ.:d Madan Lal; nor his service' were terminated; and that tht:n: was thus no question of terminating the 'ervices of Madan Lal. lt, therefore, held that Madan C Lal was not entitlt::d to any relief in the case. This mistake happened because in the refer~ncc order the name of the appellant Madan Pal Singh was mentioned as Madan Lal. The employer said that it, had no employee by the name Madan Lal working with it whose services could be alleged to have been terminakd. Based on thb plea th1.: Labour Court gaw the Award and denied any reli..:f to the appellant Madan Pal Singh. Facts which appear from the impugm;d judgment of the High Courts may be stated briefly. Madan Pal Singh was employed as work agent by NOIDA on a E day-to-day basis and was being paid Rs. 16 per day as wages. He worked during the period from July 1, 1982 to August 7, 1986. After August 7, 1986 Madan Pal Singh was not given any employment. He approached the Conciliation Officer, Ghaziabad. In his application before the Conciliation Officer he committed mistake and mentioned his name as Madan Lal instead of Madan Pal Singh. He applied to the Conciliation Officer on F March 9, 1987 to correct his name. The mistake was, however not rectified and by order dated September 16, 1986 State of UP referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The mistake in the name continued and, as as noted above, in the reference order name of the workman was mentioned as Madan Lal and not Madan Pal Singh. Parties filed their G written statements before the Labour Court and led evidence. If we now refer to the Award dated January 31, 1992 it will be seen that appfication before the Conciliation Officer was filed by the appellant on May 20, 1986. The appellant had demanded for regulation of his services. His services were terminated on July 8, 1986. He demanded from H his employer, the NOIDA, on October 3, 1986 that he be taken back in M. P. SINGH v. STATE )J.P. WADHWA,J.J 73 service and paid full back wages. He termed his termination as unjustified A and illegal. Since there was no response from the employers the appellant raised the industrial dispute. It was contended by the management that it was an Authority run by the State U.P. and had its own rules and regula­ tions. According to management U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable to them and that the workman was governed by the provisions of the Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976. It was, therefore, submitted by the management that the order of reference of the State of t.:P was liable to be rejected as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the order of reference. On facts the management alleged that Madan Pal Singh had been a casual labourer on daily wages on temporary basis from time to time and on the expiry of the limited period his services used to be terminated. It was also submitted that the appellant was never employed on any permanent post nor was he made permanent and since he was working as casual labourer, as and when required, his services were liable to be: terminated at any time without giving any notice or reason. It was also submitted that appellant did not work continuously and that he D worked with break from time to time it was further submitkd that services of the appellant were not satisfactory and his services could not be con­ tinUt:d. There was no violation of any service rules in terminating the services of the appellant. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant was gainfully employed and that evidencc would be adduced for that purpose. In support of his case Madan Pal Singh examined himself, Evidence was E led on bchalf of thc management. In his statement Pratap Kumar, Pariyojna Abhiyanta on behalf of tht: managemt:nt said that no one by th.: name Madan Lal was ever employed and services of no Madan Lal were ter­ minated on July 8, 1986. In cross-exdillinatiun, however, he admitted that ht: knew Madan Lal and Madan Pal who was present in the Court. He F denied that :Vladan Pal's services had been illt:gally tt;rminatt:d. When the appellant came to know that his name was written as Madan Lal in thc referencc order hc wrote to the Joint Secretary to the Government of t:.P. On September 19, 1991 for corn.:ction of the mistake. Appellant sought adjournment from the Labour Court on tht ground that G he was getting the n:ft:rence amended. This was objected to by the employer. However, Labour Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that instead of Madan Pal tht: name of Madan Lal had been mentioned and that there was nu dispute between Madan Lal and the management. lt said that in spite of the time having been given to the appellant tu gt:t J:1 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) l S.C.R. A the reference amended ... ..._<) mistake rectified nothing was done till the date of the Award. It, therefore, held that there was no relationship between Madan Lal and the management and there was no industrial dispute existing till then. That being so there was no question of terminating the services of Madan la! and that due to all these reasons the reference was B bad. The Award was published on March 16, 1992. On March 24, !992 State Governmt:nt amendt:d the reference and said that in place of the existing name of the workman Madan Lal, Madan Pal has been written and be read accordingly. C Appellant again approached the Labour Court and brought to its notict: the amended reference and prayed that in the interest of justice nt:cessary order be passed on the reference. By order dated June 3, 1993 Labour Court noted that order dated March 24, 1992 had been n:ceivcd from the ~tate Government and that the D appellant submitted application datt:d may 31, 1992 for necessary action in the refen:nce. This was objected to by the management on the ground that no am.:ndment could be made after the Award had been given. Agreeing with the management the Labour Court rnjected the application of the appellant. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the E order of the Labour Court, which, as noted above, was dismissed by the impugned judgment. High Court also observed that appellant was not employed to any regular post aftt-T sdection in accordance with service rules of NOIDA and his employment was not c 1 regular basis. His employment began in the F morning and came to an end in the t:vt:ning ewry day. After August 7, 1986 appellant was not employed and thus for mon: than 12 years he wa~ not in service of tht: management. High Court then went on to hold as under : Though the mistake was unintended and could have been rectified by the Concihation Officer himself when it was brought to his notice but he failed to do so. The refen:nce by the Government was made with the wrong name and for several years the petitioner did not care to get the reference amended. It was only when the respondent in his .:videnct: contended that there was no employt:e by tht: name of Madan Lal that the petitioner woke up and moved the Government for rectification. Hen: again the Government was ). ' _J ,. \ .L \ ( M. P. SINGH v. STAT!-<. [DP WADHWA.J.J 75 slow while the Labour Court was quick The Labour Court decided the n:fon:nce without waiting for the correction for a rnasonable time. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition at his own ease on 13.L1994. The Stamp Reporter reported that the writ petition was beyond 90 days by 133 days and it has remained pending in this Court for more than 4 112 years. The result is that more than 12 years have passed since the petitioner ceast:d to be employt:d by the n:spond..:nt. The petitiom:r is a contributory :o this abnormal dday and if the matter is st:nt hack to the Labour Court it will take further time for the dispo,al of the matter on merits. The petitiem:r was ml:n:ly a daily wager. Therdore, in vkw of this huge time lag 1 do not think it will h1: a proper ext:rcise of the discretion C of this court under Article 220 of the Constitution of India to interfon: in thi' mlitkr. Thl' writ petition is, therdore, dismissed. Tht: partits will, however, bear their own costs." 1"othing could be more unfurtunatt: for the poor workman. Justice D n:maint:d du,ivc, a tar cry for him in spilt: of so much laws. Slow pace of bur.:aucracy ()n the om: hlind and rage for disposal by tht Labour Court on tht other kd tu injustict. During the courst: of adjudication proct:edings no ont: was in doubt about tht: identity of the workman that it was Madan Pal Singh. The E managemt:n.t did not raise tht: preliminary objection about the validity of the rderence on thi:: ground that no workman by the name Madan Lal was in its employrnt:nt and so tht: refon:ncl: was bad. Evidence had bet:n lt:d bdort: tht: Labour ( :ourt and it is only at tht fag end of the proctedings that it was statt:d by tht management that thcrt: was no Madan :al in its F employmenL :'llo doubt, initially the fault lay on the workman himst:lf when he gav.: wrung name and tht:n did not pursul: for comxtion of tht: nam..:. T'hen: may have b1;;.:n causes for dday but it cannot be said that the appellant is solely tn he blamcd for at! this. Tirelessly and singk handi;d he has bt:t:n fighting his case against thc might of the State undertaking. If he was in fault to any extcnt in the: dday of disposal of his casc all these G yt:ars and if ultimate'y he is found to b.; entitled to rclid, thc court can certainly mould the rclid suitably. Equitable wnsidt:rations can certainly bc taken into account in such a case. When it camL to its notice: that thc name of tht: workman was not H 76 SUPREME COt.:RT REPORTS (2CC0] 1 S.C.R. A correctly mentioned in the reference though there was no doubt about his identity the Labour Court itself could have sought correction of the refer­ ence from the State Government. When the appellant approached the State Government for correcting the reference Labour Court certainly could have waited till the State Government amended the reference or otherwise. B If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no industrial dispuk because there was no workman in respect of whom Industrial disputt: was sought to be raised, the reference itself was 11011 est and the award a nullity. When the reference ha<l been amended jurisdiction stood conferred on the Labour Court and it could have held proceedings from the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its C amendment. With the consent of the parties it could have relied upon the evidence which it had recorded before the reference was amended. Whatever the situation this Court cannot permit injustice to perpetuate. Accordingly, the impugned judgmtnt of the High Court is set aside and so is the Awa.rd dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court. Matter D will go back to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute now between the workman Madan Pal Singh and the management being NOIDA. It shall take on record the evidence which had already been recorded earlier before the amendment of the reference and, if necessary, grant further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Matter being old E we need not stress for the expeditious disposal of the refen:nce by the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,GCO Costs shall be payable by the State Government for its not responding to the plea of the appellant in amending the n:ference in time and thus F causing him sufferings and expense all these years. R.C.K Appeal allowed. .( ! \ -<