The Himachal Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) reaffirms, following binding Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents, that stale or belated claims—especially those raised after long acquiescence and regularization—cannot be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This ruling upholds existing law and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts and industrial tribunals in employment and labour matters.
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 (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and labour tribunals in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive value in other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Labour and Industrial Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an industrial dispute raised after inordinate and unexplained delay, especially post-regularization and acquiescence, may be referred by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the State Government is not a mere post office in reference matters and must apply its independent mind. If a dispute is stale, belated, and the workman has acquiesced (e.g., by accepting regularization without demur for years), reference can be declined. The doctrine of delay, laches, and acquiescence bars reference where claims are resurrected long after cause of action has faded. The factual matrix, including long delays and lack of explanation, defeat any subsequent demand for referral. The ruling emphasizes that industrial disputes must ‘exist’ or be ‘alive’, and not be allowed to be revived after decades, especially to secure earlier regularization purely on legal advice following others’ success. The State’s refusal to refer such disputes is reasonable and in line with binding precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that reference may be declined if dispute is stale or claim is belated; State must exercise discretion, not act as a post office; Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents on delay, laches, acquiescence, and the concept of ‘existing’ dispute under the ID Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The employees, after being initially engaged in 1999 and regularized in October 2013, raised no grievance about alleged artificial breaks (1998–2005) until 2021—over a decade later. Despite prior similar cases being decided in 2010 and 2011, no contemporaneous action was taken. The State declined to make a reference, citing delay and that the dispute had ceased to exist. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the same ground, leading to these appeals. |
| Citations | 2025:HHC:30451 (Neutral citation); cited SCC and AIR references within the judgment. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and administrative authorities in Himachal Pradesh. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court when dealing with Section 10(1) ID Act references involving delay/acquiescence. |
| Distinguishes | Cases with prompt challenge to artificial breaks or where there is no acquiescence/regularization. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies the principle that stale or belated industrial disputes, especially after regularization and acquiescence, cannot be referred for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Clarifies that the State Government is required to actively evaluate whether a dispute ‘exists’ or has become stale before making a reference.
- The claim that a benefit is being sought purely for earlier regularization after long inaction is not sustainable.
- Explicitly affirms the Full Bench view and Supreme Court precedent as binding, closing scope for contrary arguments on delay.
- Lawyers must advise clients on the fatal consequences of unexplained inordinate delay and laches when seeking reference.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench analyzed the factual background: employees accepted regularization in 2013 but challenged prior artificial breaks only in 2021, years after similar relief was granted to others and after significant passage of time.
- It relied on the Full Bench in Liaq Ram, later affirmed and clarified in Jai Singh, holding the Government is not to act as a post office in Section 10(1) references and should decline reference where the dispute is stale or non-existing.
- The court cited and applied Supreme Court dicta from Bombay Union of Journalists, Nedungadi Bank, Sudamdih Colliery, Bichitrananda Behera, Raghubir Singh, Marinmoy Maity, and S.M. Nilajkar, solidifying the proposition that unexplained delay and acquiescence bar stale references.
- The legal test is whether the dispute “exists” or is “alive”—mere technical cause or late realization does not revive dead claims, especially where regularization and seniority have been accepted and no timely protest registered.
- The court distinguished cases where prompt protest occurred and affirmed the Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with the State’s reasonable exercise of discretion in refusing the reference.
- The decision underscores that courts cannot re-open a “can of worms” by entertaining disputes resurrected after decades of inactivity and acquiescence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought parity with beneficiaries in Tarlesh Bali case (2010), arguing that artificial/fictional breaks should be ignored for seniority purposes.
- Claimed similarly situated status with earlier litigants who received relief.
- Asserted that no one would be prejudiced if benefit is granted.
Respondent (State):
- Argued there was substantial unexplained delay of over 16 years from the alleged breaks and over a decade after regularization without protest.
- Cited the petitioners’ acquiescence, acceptance of regularization, and lack of contemporaneous challenge as grounds to invoke delay and laches.
- Affirmed that the dispute had ceased to exist long ago and was stale, rendering reference under Section 10(1) ID Act inappropriate.
Factual Background
The appellants were engaged as Beldars with the state’s I&PH Department in June 1999 and subsequently regularized on 03.10.2013, without contemporaneous protest regarding earlier artificial breaks in service from 1998 to 2005. Only in 2021 did they challenge the effect of these breaks through a demand notice—after enjoying regular status for nearly a decade. The Conciliation Officer and then the State Government refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, citing delay and the doctrine of staleness. The Single Judge dismissed the employees’ writs, leading to these appeals.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(1), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The court interpreted the State Government’s discretion to make a reference, emphasizing that reference is not automatic, especially when the dispute is belated, stale, or already resolved by acquiescence. The section was construed in harmony with settled precedent that ‘existing’ (live) disputes may be referred; dead or faded disputes are excluded.
- The doctrine of delay and laches, as applied in labour law, forms an implicit bar to reference.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Ranjan Sharma concurred with the reasoned opinion delivered by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia; there is no dissent.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment reiterates the duty of the Government to exercise independent judgment (not act ministerially) when deciding on reference, but does not set out new procedural law or guidelines.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Binding Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents are affirmed and followed.
Citations
- 2025:HHC:30451 (neutral citation)
- Liaq Ram v. State of HP (Full Bench, 2011)
- Jai Singh v. State of HP, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020
- Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617
- Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455
- Sudamdih Colliery v. Workmen, (2006) 2 SCC 329
- Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, (2014) 10 SCC 301
- State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746
- Other relevant SCC and AIR citations as found within the judgment.