The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed, in line with Full Bench and Supreme Court authority, that the government may refuse to refer industrial disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if the claim is stale or affected by unexplained delay and laches. This judgment serves as binding precedent within the state and offers significant persuasive value elsewhere, especially concerning challenges to governmental refusal to refer belated industrial disputes, particularly where claimants have already accepted regularization or benefits.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/526/2025 of Joginder Vs State of HP and Ors |
| CNR | HPHC010416592025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Chief Justice) and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding within State of Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Labour law, Industrial Disputes Act, Government’s discretion in reference of dispute |
| Questions of Law | Whether the government’s refusal to refer an industrial dispute under Section 10, ID Act, due to long delay and laches, is justified and legally sustainable. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that where there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in raising the industrial dispute, and where the workman has already accepted benefits such as regularization, the State’s refusal to refer the dispute is reasonable and sustainable. The government is not a post office, but must independently satisfy itself that a live dispute “exists” and is not stale or extinguished. Claims arising after years of acquiescence, or where workmen have slept over their rights, are not entitled to reference. The mere fact of a previous favorable judgment for others does not automatically revive stale claims. The principles of delay, laches, and acquiescence apply in industrial dispute references. A mechanically forwarded stale dispute would open a “can of worms” undermining industrial peace and fairness. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied upon longstanding Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents establishing that the government should not refer stale or extinguished disputes. Delay, laches, and acquiescence are key principles. Government must independently assess whether a live dispute “exists.” No rigid formula for delay; facts of each case matter. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Workmen had originally been engaged as Beldars in 1999, and were regularized as employees on 03.10.2013. Dispute regarding “artificial/fictional breaks” between 1998-2005 was only raised in 2021, after 16 years. Demands for condonation of breaks were dismissed by the Conciliation Officer and not referred to Labour Court, citing extreme delay and acquiescence. Prior similar cases, such as Tarlesh Bali, had succeeded, but the present appellants waited many years beyond both the fictional breaks and their own regularization before claiming similar benefits. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in cases involving stale industrial dispute references and principles of delay and laches |
| Overrules | Reaffirms that any divergence from Full Bench in Liaq Ram (supra) is per incuriam, but does not expressly overrule named Supreme Court ruling |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes facts from Tarlesh Bali, as present claims are filed after years of acquiescence and regularization, rendering them stale |
| Follows | Follows Full Bench decisions in Liaq Ram and Jai Singh; Supreme Court rulings in Raghubir Singh, Bombay Union of Journalists, Nedungadi Bank |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the government’s discretion to reject stale industrial dispute references under Section 10, ID Act if there is inordinate and unexplained delay.
- Deliberate acquiescence, acceptance of regularization, or long inaction by workmen bars reopening of old issues—even with favorable precedent for others.
- The High Court considers attempts to revive such stale claims as potentially opening a “can of worms” and contrary to industrial tranquility.
- Bindings from Full Bench decisions must be followed in subsequent cases; conflicting Division Bench or Single Judge rulings are per incuriam.
- Lawyers must advise clients to act promptly on employment-related disputes; “sleeping over rights” fatally weakens claims.
- Government is required to independently evaluate if the dispute is still “live”; not a “mere post office.”
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the appeals challenge the refusal to refer long-delayed industrial disputes to the Labour Court for issues regarding “fictional breaks” in service from 1998-2005, with claims only raised in 2021 after acceptance of regularization in 2013.
- Citing Full Bench precedents (Liaq Ram and Jai Singh), the Court emphasized that the State government is not a post office; it must independently examine if a live dispute exists, and can reject stale/settled claims.
- Supreme Court authorities (Bombay Union of Journalists, Raghubir Singh, Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Ravi Kumar, etc.) were extensively relied upon, all underlining that the government may refuse reference if the claim is belated or the dispute has faded away.
- Cited Tarlesh Bali only to distinguish—while relief had been granted in similar earlier circumstances, the present claimants failed to act for years after such order, and after their own regularization.
- The Court found the “fictional breaks” issue had faded away and the claim was only an afterthought, seeking seniority/regularization benefits retrospectively.
- The judgment underscores that lengthy, unexplained delay, acquiescence, and acceptance of regularization constitute abandonment, defeating the reference claim.
- Allowing such belated claims would disrupt settled service matters and industrial peace, thus such references were rightly refused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that in similar past cases (Tarlesh Bali), artificial breaks had been condoned for seniority purposes.
- Claimed parity—they are similarly situated and deserve identical relief.
- Asserted the government’s refusal was unjustified.
Respondent (State of H.P. and others)
- Emphasized the long, unexplained delay (16 years after cause; 8 years after regularization).
- Pointed to lack of protest when regularization occurred and delay even after Tarlesh Bali was decided.
- Cited binding Full Bench/Supreme Court decisions supporting refusal for delayed or stale disputes.
Factual Background
The appellants were engaged as Beldars by the I&PH Department in June 1999. They were regularized as government employees on 03.10.2013, after years of service. Their petition challenged alleged “fictional breaks” in service from 1998-2005, which they claimed affected seniority and regularization. However, this grievance was only articulated in 2021 through a demand notice, many years after both the alleged breaks and their subsequent regularization, and more than a decade after a similarly placed group succeeded in Tarlesh Bali. Their demand was rejected by the Conciliation Officer on grounds of delay and staleness.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was central—empowering government to refer industrial disputes at any time, but also requiring assessment of whether a live dispute exists.
- The Court adopted a nuanced approach: Although the provision says “at any time,” case law establishes that staleness, delay, and laches can be valid grounds for refusal.
- Discussed requirement that the dispute must “exist,” and powers under the Act cannot be exercised mechanically or without regard to delay/acquiescence.
- No “universal formula” for what is too late; the facts and conduct in each individual case are determinative.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion was reported; both judges concurred in the main judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, guidelines, or changes to burden of proof were noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Full Bench and Supreme Court rulings on delay, laches, and government’s discretion in reference proceedings.
Citations
- 2025:HHC:30451
- 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020
- AIR 1964 SC 1617
- (2014) 10 SCC 301
- (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1307
- AIR 2024 SC 2717
- (2009) 13 SCC 746
- (2000) 2 SCC 455