The Central amendment requires the aggrieved parties to approach the Labour Court within three years of dispute, but State amendment places no such conditions.
The Madras High Court has ruled that Labour Courts cannot reject industrial disputes by relying upon the limitation period prescribed under a Central amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 even in cases where the State amendment alone should be made applicable.
Justice A.D. Maria Clete traced the history of the I.D. Act and said initially, individual workmen were unable to approach Labour courts and they were dependant on the trade unions to raise an industrial dispute which had to be dealt with by a Conciliation Officer at the first instance.
If the Conciliation Officer ends up submitting a negative report due to the failure to reach a consensus between the management and the employee, then the Central government or the State government, depending upon their jurisdiction, was given the prerogative to refer the dispute to the Labour Court.
In 1965, Parliament amended the I.D. Act permitting an individual workman too to raise an industrial dispute. However, still, the individual workmen had to undergo the regular process of approaching the Conciliation Officer first and then obtaining a reference from the government concerned.
“Even after the introduction of this process, both State and Central governments, on multiple occasions, refused to refer several disputes for adjudication. To address this issue, the Tamil Nadu Legislature enacted the Industrial Disputes (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1981,” Justice Clete said.
She pointed out the State amendment, which received the President’s assent in 1988, permitted an aggrieved individual workman to directly approach the Labour Court, on submission of a negative report by the Conciliation Officer, without expecting a reference from the government.
Even after the State amendment, the old procedure continued to be applicable to industries which fell under the jurisdiction of the Centre. “However, the Tamil Nadu amendment, being a progressive legislative measure, was subsequently adopted by other States including Andhra Pradesh,” the judge observed.
Though the Centre too, eventually, amended the I.D. Act in 2010 and permitted the workmen to approach the Labour Courts directly without expecting a government reference; the Central amendment, unlike the State amendment, ended up fixing a limitation period of three years for approaching the courts.
The 2010 amendment stated that an individual workman must first make an application to the Conciliation Officer. Even if the officer does not submit a negative report, the workman could raise a dispute before the Labour Court after waiting for 45 days.
The Central amendment also required the workman to approach the Labour Court within three years of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination from service. In the present case, Raj TV Network of Chennai had relied upon this provision and contended its former driver had not raised a dispute within three years.
However, rejecting the management’s contention, Justice Clete held that only the 1988 State amendment, sans any limitation period, would be applicable in the case of the television network and therefore, it could not rely upon the Central amendment.
The judge also criticised the Central amendment for fixing a limitation period, without even giving an opportunity for the conciliation process to get over, especially when all other enactments such as the Commercial Courts Act and Family Courts Act insist on resorting to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods before initiating litigation.
Allowing the writ petition filed by the terminated driver R. Kariamal, the judge directed the television network to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. She also ordered payment of ₹10,000 towards costs to the driver.
Published – March 17, 2025 09:17 pm IST