JABALPUR, India, May 1 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 31:
1. Appellant impugns order dated 13.11.2025; whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging award dated 09.09.2015 has been dismissed. By award dated 09.09.2015, the lower Court rejected the claim of the appellant/workman for reinstatement and backwages against alleged illegal retrenchment on the ground of delay.
2. The appellant was retrenched from the respondent-department in the year 2006. Admittedly, from 2006 till 2014 appellant did not take any steps and in the year 2014 he approached the appropriate Government and gave a representation, pursuant to which a reference of dispute was made vide order dated 07.11.2014.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that provisions of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has no applicability as the limitation to file an application arises only if the conciliation officer/appropriate Government fails to make a reference within 45 days. He submits that since the reference was made, the period of limitation under section 2-A of the Act would not be applicable. He submits that there is no limitation provided under section 10 of the Act and as such the Labour Court erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant for reinstatement and backwages.
4 . By the impugned order, the learned Writ Court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1; wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"42. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise the legal position as under:
42.1. An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered by Section 2-A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate Government forms an opinion that "any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended". The words "industrial dispute exists" are of paramount importance, unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that follows would be confined to existence of an industrial dispute.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2026/WA/103/WA_103_2026_FinalOrder_31-03-2026_digi.pdf)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
