THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. KRISHNA MURARI SHARMA
Delay in Seeking Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court Balances Illegality of Termination with Delay, Awards Lumpsum Compensation.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1500
Decision Date: 17-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Limitation Act, 1963
- Facts: A workman's termination was deemed illegal by the Labour Court, which ordered back wages from 2006-2015. The State appealed, contesting only the 15-year delay in the workman challenging the termination order. The State's counsel offered Rs. 99,000 as compensation, while the workman claimed Rs. 15,00,000 in back wages.
- Procedural Posture: The State appealed the High Court's judgment, which had upheld the Labour Court's order. The case reached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.
- Issue: Does a significant delay (15 years) in seeking a reference for adjudication of an industrial dispute disentitle the workman from challenging the order of termination, and what is the appropriate relief considering the delay? Can the employer raise the issue of delay before the Labour Court even if the reference was not challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
- Holding: The Supreme Court held that while the delay was significant, the employer-State could still raise the issue of delay before the Labour Court, even if the reference was not challenged earlier under Article 226. The Court set aside the Labour Court and High Court orders regarding reinstatement and back wages, awarding a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 to the workman.
- Reasoning: The Court acknowledged two distinct aspects of delay: challenging the reference order itself under Article 226, and the consequences of delay while adjudicating the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Citing National Engineering Industry v. State of Rajasthan and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., the Court noted that a stale issue could be questioned under Article 226. However, the failure to challenge the reference under Article 226 does not prevent the employer from raising the delay issue before the Labour Court. The Court considered precedents like Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and Ors., which emphasized the need for proof of real prejudice due to delay. Ultimately, balancing the illegality of the termination with the gross delay, the Court deemed a lumpsum compensation appropriate, noting that the Labour Court has the discretion to mould the relief considering the delay.
🔒 For Members Only