Can the Appropriate Government Decline to Refer Stale Industrial Disputes to the Labour Court Based on Delay and Laches? — Precedent Affirmed by Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds that the State, acting under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, may validly refuse to refer industrial disputes to adjudication when the claims are stale, unexplained delay is present, and workmen have acquiesced. This judgment applies binding Full Bench precedent and Supreme Court rulings, reaffirming that government discretion to decline delayed references is lawful and not merely ministerial.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that unreasonable, unexplained delay in raising industrial disputes justifies the government’s refusal to refer under Section 10(1), ID Act, 1947.
• Administrative action in not making a reference for stale or acquiesced claims is subject to binding precedent and court scrutiny.
• Acceptance of regularisation and inaction for years amounts to acquiescence and bars subsequent relief on earlier alleged service irregularities.
• Lawyers must advise clients to avoid inordinate or strategic delay in raising employment-related disputes.
• Distinguishes Tarlesh Bali, clarifying it does not apply to cases of long, unexplained delay and acquiescence after regularisation.
• Awards “seniority” relief for fictional breaks will not be entertained if claim is delayed and rights have been surrendered or accepted by conduct.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The bench noted that the government, in declining reference, properly relied on delay and laches—disputes raised after over 16 years, long after petitioners’ regularisation and without any contemporaneous grievance.
• Relied on the Full Bench decisions Liaq Ram and Jai Singh, holding the State must use its discretion, not act as a post office, and consider if a dispute is still “live”.
• Cited Supreme Court authorities (e.g., Bombay Union of Journalists (1964), Raghubir Singh (2014), Nedungadi Bank (2000)), affirming that stale and acquiesced claims can be denied reference.
• Explained that the claimants had accepted regularisation, and their subsequent demands (years after both the cause and relevant judgments like Tarlesh Bali) were thus barred by acquiescence.
• Held Tarlesh Bali’s relief for fictional breaks is not a universal precedent for delayed claims; failure to raise contemporaneous grievance is fatal.
• Emphasized that universal or open-ended power to seek references for old claims would “open a can of worms”; judicial discipline requires deference to binding precedent and proper exercise of administrative discretion.
• Appellate review found Single Judge’s order consonant with binding Full Bench and Supreme Court case law; no interference warranted.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

• Submitted that, similarly placed employees received relief in Tarlesh Bali, where artificial/fictional breaks were condoned for seniority purposes.
• Armed that petitioners are similarly situated and deserve the same benefit.
• Contended granting the relief would not prejudice any party.

Respondent (State)

• Raised that the dispute is stale, raised after 16 years, and after regularization.
• Emphasized inordinate and unexplained delay; no grievance was raised at the time of regularization or in the years following.
• Cited that petitioners acquiesced to their position and only sought relief in response to the success of similarly situated persons, making claims an afterthought.
• Submitted the State acted lawfully in declining to refer the dispute.

Factual Background

The petitions arose from employment disputes in the Himachal Pradesh I&PH Department, where petitioners alleged artificial/fictional service breaks between 1998 and 2005. All petitioners were regularized as employees on 03.10.2013 at Chamba. No action or grievance was raised by any of the petitioners at the time of regularization or thereafter, until they raised the present dispute in 2021—16 years after the alleged cause of action and eight years post-regularization. The Labour Commissioner declined to refer the dispute due to this excessive and unexplained delay, which was later upheld by a Single Judge and, ultimately, by this Division Bench.

Statutory Analysis

• The key provision discussed was Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• The Court affirmed that the government is empowered to refer disputes for adjudication “at any time,” but such power is not unfettered.
• The government must exercise discretion to determine if a dispute is “live” or stale—unexplained delay or acquiescence can justify refusal of reference.
• Cited various Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents that reading “delay and laches” as relevant considerations is a settled principle under the Act.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or separate concurring opinion; both judges were in agreement as per the record.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural innovations or guidelines issued in this decision; the court applied existing standards and binding precedent.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.

Citations

• 2025:HHC:30451
• Liaq Ram v. State of H.P. (Full Bench, 2011)
• Jai Singh v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020
• Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307
• Marinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley, AIR 2024 SC 2717
• Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617
• Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301
• I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733
• Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Society, (1999) 6 SCC 82
• S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27
• State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746
• Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455
• Sudamdih Colliery v. Workmen, (2006) 2 SCC 329
• Tarlesh Bali v. State of H.P., CWP(T) No.1129/2008 (2010)