The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that the State Government is empowered to refuse reference of industrial disputes under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if the claim is stale or delayed, aligning with long-standing Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents; remains binding authority for all courts in Himachal Pradesh and persuasive across India, particularly concerning fictional breaks and regularization claims raised after significant delay.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/534/2025 of SUBHASH CHAND Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010416632025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Full Bench judgments in Liaq Ram and Jai Singh; follows SC authorities |
| Type of Law | Labour/Industrial Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reiterated that the appropriate Government has discretion under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to refuse reference if the claim is stale, delayed, or has ceased to exist as a live dispute. Citing Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents, the court reasoned that delay and acquiescence, especially when regularization has already been accepted, disables the employee from seeking reference regarding fictional breaks after many years. The judgment recognizes the principle that the government’s role is not merely mechanical, and there must be a real, subsisting dispute. Actions for the purposes of only securing seniority or backdated regularization after long acquiescence cannot be entertained and may be deemed an afterthought. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellants, all daily-wage workmen, were engaged in 1999, received regularization in 2013, but raised an industrial dispute in 2021 regarding fictional breaks between 1998–2005 to seek seniority/regularization benefits from an earlier date. The State declined to refer the dispute given the 16-year delay. The writ was dismissed; appeals challenged dismissal. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (especially on application of delay/laches bar in industrial disputes) |
| Overrules | None; affirms/reiterates existing Full Bench and Supreme Court precedent |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes facts of Tarlesh Bali v. State of HP (2010) from present matter on ground of delay/acquiescence |
| Follows | Follows Bombay Union of Journalists, Liaq Ram, Jai Singh, Raghubir Singh, Bichitrananda Behera, and others |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that delay and laches, together with acquiescence to regularization orders, disentitle employees from seeking reference of industrial disputes based on fictional breaks after long periods.
- Maintains the State Government’s discretion under Section 10(1) of the ID Act to refuse reference of stale or belated claims.
- Cites Full Bench decisions of Himachal Pradesh High Court as binding and settles that any contrary Division Bench views are per incuriam.
- Demonstrates that even if other similarly placed workmen have previously succeeded (e.g., Tarlesh Bali case), omission or delay in raising a claim will bar subsequent relief.
- Lawyers should advise clients that delay or inactivity after regularization can forfeit rights regarding earlier service issues.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court traced the chain of precedent from the Supreme Court (Bombay Union of Journalists; Bichitrananda Behera; Raghubir Singh; Marinmoy Maity; S.M. Nilajkar; Nedungadi Bank; etc.) and Full Benches of the High Court (Liaq Ram, Jai Singh).
- Affirmed that the appropriate government has substantive discretion to refuse a reference under Section 10(1) ID Act if the claim is patently frivolous, clearly belated, or not a live dispute.
- Emphasized that the State Government is not a mere post office passing claims to Labour Courts, but must independently determine if a real industrial dispute exists.
- Applied the principle that laches, unexplained delay, and acquiescence (especially accepting regularization without protest) disable workmen from seeking reference of old disputes about fictional breaks.
- Distinguished the present case from Tarlesh Bali (where applicants acted without significant delay) by highlighting the long gap between regularization and the demand notice in the instant cases.
- Cited decisions establishing that acquiescence to regularization and delay in raising claims render such disputes stale and not fit for reference.
- Concluded that granting relief after such a long gap would create disorder and is against sound industrial jurisprudence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Workmen)
- Relied on Tarlesh Bali v. State of HP, arguing that similarly situated workmen previously benefited from condonation of fiction breaks for seniority.
- Submitted that fictional breaks should be condoned and similar benefits granted.
- Contended that denial of reference was unjustified.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted that the dispute was raised after an inordinate delay (16 years after cause of action, 8 years after regularization).
- Submitted that claim had become stale and was barred by delay, laches, and acquiescence.
- Argued that government properly exercised discretion not to refer a dead dispute.
Factual Background
The appellants were initially employed as daily-wage Beldars in 1999 and received regularization as permanent employees in 2013. Their demand for seniority and other benefits, based on alleged fictional or artificial breaks in service occurring between 1998 and 2005, was only raised in a demand notice sent in 2021, more than 16 years after the cause of action and 8 years after regularization. The government, acting through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, declined to refer the issue to the Labour Court due to the extreme delay. The writ petition challenging this was dismissed by the Single Judge and was then appealed.
Statutory Analysis
The primary provision analyzed is Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning the government’s discretion to refer industrial disputes to the Labour Court. The court interpreted the phrase “at any time” as not conferring unbridled power and emphasized that the existence of a live industrial dispute is a prerequisite. Interpreted in light of binding precedents, delay and laches or acquiescence can be grounds for the government to refuse reference.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded; both judges concur in the order.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were set out in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed.
Citations
- (2025:HHC:30451)
- 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020 (Jai Singh v. State of HP)
- (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307 (Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa)
- AIR 2024 SC 2717 (Marinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley)
- (2014) 10 SCC 301 (Raghubir Singh v. GM, Haryana Roadways)
- 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733 (Workmen v. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd.)
- (1999) 6 SCC 82 (Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Society)
- (2003) 4 SCC 27 (S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager)
- (2009) 13 SCC 746 (State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar)
- (2000) 2 SCC 455 (Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty)
- (2006) 2 SCC 329 (Sudamdih Colliery of BCCL v. Workmen)
- AIR 1964 SC 1617 (Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay)