Deciding Authority : Supreme of Court
Date of Judgement : 06/01/2000
Bench : S. SAGHIR AHMAD & D.P. WADHWA
Facts : Madan Pal Singh was employed as work agent by NOIDA on a day-to-day basis and was being paid Rs. 16 per day as wages. He worked during the period from July 1,1982 to August 7,1986. After August 7,1986 Madan Pal Singh was not given any employment. He approached the Conciliation Officer, Ghaziabad. In his application before the Conciliation Officer he committed mistake and mentioned his name as Madan Lal instead of Madan Pal Singh. He applied to the Conciliation Officer on March 9,1987 to correct his name. The mistake was, however not rectified and by order dated September 16, 1986 State of UP referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The mistake in the name continued and, as as noted above, in the reference order name of the workman was mentioned as Madan Lal and not Madan Pal Singh. Parties filed their written statements before the Labour Court and led evidence.
Judgement : Nothing could be more unfortunate for the poor workman. Justice remained elusive, a far cry for him in spite of so much laws. Slow pace of bureaucracy on the one hand and rage for disposal by the Labour Court on the other led to injustice.During the course of adjudication proceedings no one was in doubt about the identity of the workman that it was Madan Pal Singh. The management did not raise the preliminary objection about the validity of the reference on the ground that no workman by the name Madan Lal was in its employment and so the reference was bad. Evidence had been led before the Labour Court and it is only at the fag end of the proceedings that it was stated by the management that there was no Madan lal in its employment.
No doubt, initially the fault lay on the workman himself when he gave wrong name and then did not pursue for correction of the name. There may have been causes for delay but it cannot be said that the appellant is solely to be blamed for all this. Tirelessly and single handed he has been fighting his case against the might of the State undertaking. If he was in fault to any extent in the delay of disposal of his case all these years and if ultimately he is found to be entitled to relief, the court can certainly mould the relief suitably. Equitable considerations can certainly be taken, into account in such a case.
When it came to its notice that the name of the workman was not correctly mentioned in the reference though there was no doubt about his identity the Labour Court itself could have sought correction of the reference from the State Government, When the appellant approached the State Government for correcting the reference Labour Court certainly could have waited till the State Government amended the reference or otherwise. If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no industrial dispute because there was no workman in respect of whom Industrial dispute was sought to be raised, the reference itself was non est and the award a nullity. When the reference had been amended jurisdiction stood conferred on the Labour Court and it could have held proceedings from the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its amendment. With the consent of the parties it could have relied upon the evidence which it had recorded before the reference was amended. Whatever the situation this Court cannot permit injustice to perpetuate.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and so is the Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court. Matter will go back to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute now between the workman Madan Pal Singh and the management being Noida.
Held : Appeal Allowed with Costs.
Tejasv Anand , IVth Year , AMITY LAW SCHOOL, DELHI.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS