The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that the government may refuse to refer an industrial dispute to the Labour Court if the claim is stale or suffers from unexplained delay and acquiescence. The division bench follows and applies binding Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents, holding such refusal as justified under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This is a binding authority for all courts in Himachal Pradesh and persuasive nationwide, particularly relevant for government service and labour law disputes involving delayed claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/525/2025 of BHINDER RAM Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010416552025 |
| 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, Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive authority outside |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Labour law / industrial disputes procedures (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the appropriate government can refuse reference of an industrial dispute to the Labour Court due to an unexplained long delay and whether stale claims can be entertained. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the government is empowered to refuse reference of stale industrial disputes under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially when the claim is made after an inordinate and unexplained delay and when the workman has already accepted regularisation without contest. The bench followed the Full Bench decision in Liaq Ram and Jai Singh, as well as binding Supreme Court authorities, emphasizing that delay and acquiescence are fatal to such claims. Principles of delay, laches, and the need for the dispute to be “live” at the time of reference are decisive. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The decision emphasizes that delay, laches, and stale claims bar judicial intervention in belated industrial disputes, and government is not a mere “post office”; it must apply independent judgment on reference requests. Once a workman accepts regularisation and does not contest for years, later claims for benefits related to “fictional breaks” cannot be entertained. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The workmen were initially engaged between 1998–1999, regularized in 2013 after over 240 days of service per year, and raised disputes about artificial breaks only in 2021—over 16 years after the alleged breaks, and 8 years after regularization. Their petition was dismissed by the single judge for delay; the government refused reference citing staleness and acquiescence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Labour Courts, and Supreme Court (persuasive authority beyond HP) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies the principle that the government may refuse industrial dispute references if the claim is stale, suffers from delay and acquiescence, and is not “live” at the time of reference.
- Clarifies that acceptance of regularisation without challenge for long periods bars future claims predating regularisation (e.g., for notional seniority due to “fictional breaks”).
- Affirms that judgments granting relief in other cases (e.g., Tarlesh Bali) do not justify condonation of delay for similarly situated employees who did not act promptly.
- Delay in raising industrial disputes impacts maintainability—mere existence of a legal principle does not revive stale or abandoned claims.
- The government is required to apply its independent mind and is not bound to refer every demand to adjudication, especially where delay is unexplained.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the factual matrix: appellants were engaged as beldars from 1999, regularized in 2013, but challenged “artificial breaks” between 1998 and 2005 only in 2021.
- The court observed that the appellants had accepted their regularisation order and raised no grievance either at that time or subsequently for 8 years, nor after the decision in Tarlesh Bali (2010) for over a decade.
- Relying on Full Bench authorities (Liaq Ram and Jai Singh), the bench held that the government may refuse to refer stale or belated claims, especially when the workman has acquiesced or slept over rights.
- Supreme Court decisions—Bombay Union of Journalists, Nedungadi Bank, Ravi Kumar, Raghubir Singh, Sudamdih Colliery, Marinmoy Maity, etc.—all reinforce the government’s discretion to refuse reference where the dispute is not “live.”
- The bench distinguished Tarlesh Bali, noting delay in raising claims despite awareness of earlier successful litigation by others precludes condonation.
- The bench found no error in the government or the single judge’s decisions; delay, laches, and acquiescence are fatal to such belated claims.
- The court confirmed that the government is not a post office and must exercise discretion under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Workmen/Appellants)
- Claimed parity with Tarlesh Bali judgment where artificial/fictional breaks were condoned for the purpose of seniority.
- Submitted that the present workmen are similarly situated and are entitled to same relief.
- Argued that previous regularisation and policy do not take away the right to seek correction for past “fictional breaks.”
Respondent (State)
- Opposed on grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence; dispute was not “live.”
- Emphasized the government applied its mind and properly refused reference.
- Pointed out the petitioners accepted regularisation in 2013, never challenged it, and waited years after Tarlesh Bali to raise new claims.
- Argued that condoning such delay would open the floodgates and is unsupported in law.
Factual Background
The appellants were engaged as Beldars in the State I&PH Department between 1998 and 1999. Their services continued with certain artificial breaks from 1998–2005. They were regularized on 03.10.2013 after working over 240 days per year. In 2021, about 16 years after the alleged breaks and 8 years after regularisation, the workmen raised the dispute seeking parity with the Tarlesh Bali judgment regarding condonation of breaks for seniority benefits. The government refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court, citing delay and that the claim was stale. The single judge dismissed their writ petitions on the same grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Empowers the appropriate government to refer any industrial dispute for adjudication. The court interpreted this section to confirm that referral is discretionary and not automatic, especially where claims are “stale” or brought after lengthy, unexplained delays.
- The government must determine if a “live” dispute subsists; if not, it is justified in refusing reference.
- No “reading down” or constitutional provisions were invoked in the decision.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting opinions. Both Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma concurred in dismissing the appeals and confirming the settled legal position.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were established by the bench in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law affirmed; both Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents strictly applied.
Citations
- 2025:HHC:30451 (Neutral citation)
- Full Bench, Liaq Ram v. State of HP, CWP No.1486 of 2007 (2011)
- Jai Singh v. State of HP, 2022 SCC OnLine HP 1020
- Tarlesh Bali v. State of HP, CWP(T) No.1129/2008, Decided 17.05.2010
- Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1307
- Marinmoy Maity v. Chanda Koley, AIR 2024 SC 2717
- Raghubir Singh v. GM, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301
- 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
- State of Karnataka v. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746
- S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27
- Workmen v. I.I.T.I. Cycles, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 733