Punjab & Haryana HC: Second Industrial Dispute Maintainable If Earlier Reference Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that the dismissal of an earlier industrial dispute for want of prosecution does not operate as res judicata, thereby allowing a fresh reference on the same cause of action where there has been no prior adjudication on the merits.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari presided over the matter, determining the sustainability of a reference order challenged by a management-petitioner. The Court was tasked with deciding whether a subsequent reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legally permissible after a previous one was dismissed due to the workman's non-appearance.

Res Judicata Not Applicable Without Adjudication on Merits

The Court observed that for the principle of res judicata to apply, the matter must have been previously heard and finally decided. In this case, the initial reference was dismissed in 2002 simply because the workman failed to appear. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A perusal of the aforesaid Award clearly reflects that the Industrial Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Rather, the reference was dismissed, solely on account of the non-appearance of the respondent no.4-workman, and his failure to prosecute the proceedings... In the case in hand, the earlier reference was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, there exists no legal bar to a subsequent reference being made for adjudication on merits."

The Bench relied on the precedent set in Virendra Bhandari vs. Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation and others ( "2002 (9) SCC 200": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 819), where the Supreme Court held that if an industrial dispute still exists, the government can refer it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such proceedings are intended for maintaining industrial peace rather than just private adjudication. This principle was further supported by Bhim Sen Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and others, Danala Apparao and ors. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur and others., Amreli Municipality vs. Shantibhai Dhyabhai Jethva and others, and Gurbhej Singh vs. State of Punjab and another ( "(2003) 3 SCT 399": 2003 CaseBase(PNH) 61).

Delay and Laches: A Mixed Question of Fact and Law

Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding a 5.5-year delay in raising the second demand notice, the Court referred to UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Ram Singh and Another. While acknowledging that unreasonable delay can be a ground for rejection, the Court noted that the initial demand was made promptly within six months of the dismissal approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court concluded that the question of whether the subsequent delay was "unreasonable" is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal during the adjudication process.

The Court has following directions:

"The question, as to whether, there exists any unreasonable delay on the part of respondent no.4-workman in raising demand for second time for the same cause would be a mixed question of fact and law, which can appropriately be examined by the Industrial Tribunal concerned, at the relevant stage, while adjudicating the impugned reference. Therefore, this Court refrains itself from making any observation on the said issue, leaving it open for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal, at an appropriate stage."

Background:

The dispute originated when the respondent-workman was dismissed in 1994 following a domestic inquiry for misconduct. Since a general dispute was pending, the management sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was granted in 1997. The workman raised a demand notice in 1998, leading to a reference in 1999. However, that reference was dismissed for want of prosecution in 2002. In 2008, the workman raised a fresh demand notice, leading to the impugned reference order dated 08.02.2010. The petitioner challenged this reference and a notification empowering Assistant Labour Commissioners to exercise reference powers. Although a Division Bench upheld the notification's validity, the management continued to contest the reference on grounds of res judicata and delay. The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, allowing the reference to proceed before the Tribunal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CWP-1980-2011 (O&M)
Case Title: M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. V.S.Mahal, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab; Mr. Chanandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no.4-workman.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 115