Government Can't Refer Issue To Labour Court In Absence Of Dispute Regarding Termination: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the absence of demand/ dispute regarding termination, the government cannot refer issue to the Labour Court.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition challenging a corrigendum issued by the Joint Labour Commissioner modifying an earlier reference by including issue regarding termination of worker's service.

The Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed, "....this Court is of the considered view that the Appropriate Government in the absence of being seized with the issue of termination of the services of the employees by way of a Demand Notice or an industrial dispute raised in this regard by the aggrieved employees, had no authority to make a reference of this issue to the learned Labour Court. This extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the Appropriate Government when it issued Corrigendum dated 26.06.2019. The appropriate Government erred in not appreciating that as the termination of the services of the employees was a fresh cause of action, the aggrieved person could either have agitated the same by raising an industrial dispute or file a claim petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act before the learned Labour Court. The appropriate Government suo-motu had no authority to amend the Reference earlier made or otherwise make a Reference of this particular issue to the learned Labour Court."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Naresh. K. Sood while the Respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Pushpinder Jaswal.

Facts of the Case

The management of Auckland House School challenged the corrigendum which modified an earlier reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by including issues regarding the termination of workers' services, an issue that was not part of the original dispute. The Labour Court's order dismissing their challenge to the corrigendum was also dismissed.

Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argued that once the Reference stood made by the Appropriate Government to the Labour Court, there was no power vested in the Labour Court to amend the same as was done in terms of the impugned Corrigendum. He submitted that the Reference made earlier was on the basis of the Demand Notice which was raised by the Respondents qua which the conciliation proceedings took place. He further submitted that the subsequent Corrigendum incidentally was issued on the basis of a development which took place during the conciliation proceedings, but qua which neither there was any industrial dispute raised nor any conciliation had taken place, which were pending before the Officer. 

Reasoning By Court 

The Court agreed with submissions of the Counsel for the Petitioners and referred to Section 10 (1) and Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

"....a harmonious reading of these two Sections only leads to one conclusion that the Appropriate Government can refer the dispute to the learned Labour Court only when it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is admitted. This opinion can only be formulated by the Appropriate Government if any demand is raised by the aggrieved person before the Appropriate Government", the Court held.

It thus ruled that in the present case, in the absence of any demand having been raised by the aggrieved persons with the Appropriate Government qua their alleged illegal termination, no Reference either by way of amendment or otherwise could have been made by the Government on this count.

"....This does not mean that the aggrieved persons were remedy-less. They either could have independently raised a fresh demand or could have invoked the provisions of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Appropriate Government per se, suo motu, independently did not have any jurisdiction to amend the Reference in the peculiar facts of this case in the mode and manner in which it has been done vide Annexure-F, dated 26.06.2019", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Auckland House School & others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others (2025:HHC:34746-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Naresh. K. Sood, Advocate Aman Sood

Respondent- Additional Advocate General Pushpinder Jaswal, Advocate Shikha Chauhan

Click here to read/ download Order