The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Labour Commissioner to refer an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of more than thirteen years and could not be revived. The petition was filed by workmen of a private company who claimed various service benefits, including back wages, termination compensation, and other terminal benefits allegedly due to them from the employer. The workmen contended that they had been employed for a period in the late 2000s and claimed that their services were irregularly terminated without compliance with statutory requirements, giving rise to an industrial dispute that required adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
The dispute, however, was first formally raised only in 2021, more than thirteen years after the last claimed event of service termination and cessation of employment. When the workmen approached the Labour Commissioner seeking a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, the Commissioner refused on the ground that the long delay in raising the dispute indicated an absence of any live or subsisting controversy requiring adjudication. According to the Labour Commissioner, a dispute that has remained dormant for more than a decade cannot be treated as a continuing industrial dispute, and the statutory referral machinery cannot be used to revive stale issues where evidence, records, and witnesses might no longer be available or reliable.
In their writ petition to the High Court, the workmen argued that the delay should not be a ground to refuse reference, asserting that their rights had been infringed and that they were entitled to have their grievances adjudicated irrespective of the passage of time. They cited principles of natural justice and the right to seek adjudication of industrial disputes as the basis for their claim.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing industrial disputes and the role of the Labour Commissioner in determining whether a dispute is fit for reference to adjudication bodies such as the Industrial Tribunal. The court observed that the industrial dispute machinery is intended to address live and genuine disputes between employers and employees in order to maintain industrial peace and resolve conflicts in accordance with law. It noted that the statutory scheme empowers the Labour Commissioner to examine the existence and nature of a dispute at the time of application and to refuse reference where, on the facts, no current or bona fide controversy exists.
The court emphasised that a long unexplained delay in raising a dispute, such as the thirteen-year gap in the present case, lends support to the inference that the controversy is stale, that the parties may no longer have a clear recollection of events or evidence, and that the industrial relations landscape may have fundamentally changed in the intervening period. Accepting or reviving such delayed claims, the court reasoned, would undermine the objectives of prompt resolution of disputes and could burden tribunals with matters that have lost their immediacy and relevance.
In dismissing the writ petition, the High Court upheld the Labour Commissioner’s discretion to refuse reference in such circumstances. The court held that the Commissioner had rightly concluded that the dispute was not a current industrial controversy warranting adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and that the mere existence of a grievance, without timely pursuit, does not automatically entitle the workmen to have their claim adjudicated after an extended period of dormancy. The High Court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that industrial disputes must be raised and processed within a reasonable time so that they reflect active disagreements requiring resolution, and that stale disputes, especially those prolonged without explanation, cannot be revived through writ jurisdiction to compel reference for adjudication.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the importance of timely engagement with statutory dispute resolution mechanisms and the discretionary role of authorities in filtering out obsolete or inactive claims from formal adjudication.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.