The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that inordinate and unexplained delay in raising an industrial dispute may justify refusal by the Government to refer such disputes to the Labour Court. This ruling follows and affirms prior Full Bench and Supreme Court decisions, reinforcing their binding authority on all subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh. The principle is particularly relevant to disputes involving artificial or fictional breaks and delayed demands for regularization.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/563/2025 of PURAN CHAND Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010426392025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-08-2025 |
| 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 (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench – Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms binding Full Bench precedents (Liaq Ram, Jai Singh) and Supreme Court authorities |
| Type of Law | Labour / Service Law – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 |
| Questions of Law | Whether inordinate and unexplained delay bars reference of industrial disputes to Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that when a workman raises a dispute after a significant unexplained delay (in this case, raising an issue dating back to 1998–2005 in 2021—about 16 years later), the State Government may legitimately refuse to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The “existence” or “life” of a dispute is extinguished by such delay, especially where the employee acquiesced, accepted regularization, and did not act when relevant precedents were decided. The principle of laches, acquiescence, and the need to prevent stale claims from reopening settled matters underpins the ruling. Binding Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents were applied to dismiss the appeals. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Delay and laches, acquiescence, and requirement for timely invocation of industrial dispute process; refusal of stale claims to be re-litigated for administrative certainty; refusal of reference is justified where the “dispute has ceased to exist.” |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged refusal of reference by the State, regarding artificial breaks in service from 1998–2005; dispute raised after regularization was granted in 2013; demand notice raised only in 2021, 16 years after the cause of action; petitioners argued parity with prior case (Tarlesh Bali). |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh; parties before the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None (Affirms Full Bench and SC precedents; distinguishes any contrary decisions as per incuriam, per Jai Singh) |
| Distinguishes | Tarlesh Bali and Others v. State of HP (distinguished on facts and timing of claim) |
| Follows | Liaq Ram v. State of HP (Full Bench); Jai Singh v. State of HP (Full Bench); Supreme Court authorities on delay |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that stale industrial disputes raised after a long and unexplained delay are not entitled to be referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- The principle applies even when previous judgments (e.g., Tarlesh Bali) had condoned artificial breaks, if the aggrieved workmen did not act with reasonable promptness after such rulings.
- Regularization and acceptance thereof without contemporaneous challenge operate as acquiescence and bar subsequent claims to earlier regularization or benefits on the same facts.
- State Government is not a mere “post office”; it must apply an independent mind and can refuse reference in the face of inordinate delay.
- Judgment affirms and clarifies the binding nature of the “existence” test for industrial disputes before reference.
- Cites and relies on a cohesive line of authorities (including Supreme Court and Full Bench) on delay/laches in service/labour matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first established the facts: Artificial/fictional breaks were alleged between 1998 and 2005, but regularization occurred in 2013 and claimants accepted this without protest.
- Petitioners waited until 2021 to raise the issue—16 years after the events and 8 years after regularization—without any justification for the delay.
- The Court referenced its own Full Bench rulings (Liaq Ram, Jai Singh) mandating that the appropriate Government is to act as more than a “post office”, assessing not just existence but timeliness of a dispute.
- Supreme Court precedents (Bombay Union of Journalists; Raghubir Singh; Bichitrananda Behera; Marinmoy Maity; Nedungadi Bank; State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar) were cited to affirm that unexplained, inordinate delay allows the refusal of reference.
- The rationale is to prevent re-litigation of long-settled matters, preserve administrative certainty, and avoid prejudice to employers unable to meet stale claims.
- Even previous successful cases (such as Tarlesh Bali) do not preclude the application of laches where a different claimant waits much longer to make a similar claim.
- The appeals were accordingly dismissed for falling afoul of delay, laches, and acquiescence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that, in similar circumstances (Tarlesh Bali and others), artificial/fictional breaks were condoned for seniority and petitioners here are identically situated.
- Sought that the petitioners be granted similar benefits despite the time lapse.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that delay was inordinate (16 years); petitioners had already accepted regularization in 2013.
- Emphasized the necessity for timely invocation of rights, and that acquiescence and laches barred the petitioners’ claims.
- Government justified in refusing reference due to the dispute having become stale.
Factual Background
The petitioners were engaged as Beldars in the Irrigation & Public Health Department in 1999 and worked with alleged artificial/fictional breaks from 1998 to 2005. Their services were regularized in 2013, which they accepted without objection. Only in 2021—after an interval of 16 years from the cause and 8 years post-regularization—did the petitioners raise their dispute, seeking parity with earlier successful litigants (Tarlesh Bali and others). The State refused to refer the dispute, leading to the present appeals.
Statutory Analysis
Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was the central provision discussed. The Court reiterated that, although the Act permits Government to refer disputes “at any time,” judicial precedents have read this power as subject to the condition that the dispute must still “exist” and not be stale or dead. The Court denied the proposition that every dispute must be referred, emphasizing governmental discretion and the principle of laches/acquiescence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion was delivered; Justice Ranjan Sharma concurred with the Chief Justice’s judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms existing judgments by Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court on delay and laches in references under Industrial Disputes Act.
Citations
- 2025:HHC:30451 (Neutral citation)
- Jai Singh v. State of HP, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020
- Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617
- Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301
- Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307
- Marinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley, AIR 2024 SC 2717
- Nedungadi Bank v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455
- State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746
- Workmen v. I.T.I. Cycles, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733
- Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative, (1999) 6 SCC 82
- S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27
- Sudamdih Colliery v. Workmen (2006) 2 SCC 329