[Industrial Disputes Act] Though the Labour enactment says it is for speedy disposal, it moves at a snail's pace: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently lamented at the snail's pace at which industrial disputes move, adding that such disputes sometimes take a "quarter-century" to traverse from the Industrial Tribunal to the High Court on appeal (K Ezhilarasi and ors v. Government of India and ors)..To minimise practical difficulties encountered in tracing legal heirs when the employee passes away during the long pendency of a labour dispute, the Court has now directed the concerned authorities/ tribunals/ labour courts to maintain details such as Aadhaar card, mobile number, and date of birth until the dispute is taken to its logical end. ."The employees must furnish their date of birth and Aadhaar Card before the Tribunal, and mobile numbers, which shall be retained till the issues are brought to a logical end, even though they are permitted to change the provider. In all pending matters, the Authority concerned, Labour Court and Tribunals must seek the above particulars, as dispute does not end in Lower forums," the Court said. .Justice S Vaidyanathan passed the order while dealing with a dispute dating back to 2016. Referring to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he commented, ."Even though the Labour enactment says that, it is meant for speedy disposal, it moves in a snail's pace only and time has come where the legal heirs of the deceased employee's legal heirs are going to continue the dispute, i.e. the employees are going to leave the legacy of litigation to their grand children/future generations.".Where employees pass away during the dispute, it becomes difficult for the employer and the Court to trace their legal heirs in order to even serve notice, the Court added. In this regard, the judge also recounted his personal experience in having to deal with such a case. ."Disputes take quarter Century to be concluded from Tribunal to the High Court level and in case of demise of the employees, it becomes difficult for the employer and the Court to find out their legal heirs, to serve notice. I had an occasion to deal with a Writ Petition of the year 2002, involving an industrial dispute which was pending for more than 28 years. The whereabouts of the employee in that case was not able to be ascertained and the Lawyers representing the employee as also the Management died due to Covid-19. That is the reason for the aforesaid observation," he said..The case before the Court.The case concerned a dispute over the regularisation or absorption on a permanent basis of employees who worked on a casual basis for the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (now merged with State Bank of India). .The dispute remained pending at the stage of conciliation despite its institution in 2016, after an erroneous reference (for adjudication) was made by the government wherein their dispute was termed as one of "non-employment" instead of one for "regularisation/absorption." The Court was informed that the names of one of the employees was also misspelt in the reference. .The employees later moved the High Court with respect to the erroneous reference made by the government to the Tribunal. .Officials dealing with labour matters are expected to deal with it cautiously, many issues deal with the lives of employees: Court.After hearing the matter, the Court proceeded to direct the government to correct the reference by issuing a corrigendum within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. .The Industrial Tribunal was also asked to proceed with the case without adjourning the matter beyond seven working days at any point of time in terms of Rule 10B(8) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and to bring the issue to a logical end.."The Government, by referring the dispute pertaining to the Petitioners herein, as to one of non-employment, instead of regularization/absorption, has made a perfunctory approach to the issue on hand. The dispute with regard to regularization/absorption can be raised only by the Union under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Union is competent to raise the dispute or not, is for the Industrial Tribunal to decide. As the Reference made by the Government vide order dated 30.12.2019 is liable to be interfered with, the Government will have to issue a corrigendum with regard to regularization/absorption of the Petitioners herein under the State Bank of India," the Court said..The Court noted that on account of the erroneous reference, the matter was kept pending for years. In order to avoid further litigation, the Court also framed the issue to be referred for adjudication. Further, the Court directed that the name earlier spelt erroneously be corrected in the corrected reference. .The Court added that the government is expected to act swiftly in issuing the corrigendum within the time stipulated. "Officials who are concerned with regard to the dealing of Labour matters, are expected to deal with it cautiously, as many of the issues deal with the lives of the employees and in some cases, on account of wrong issue being referred, employers have to pay for no fault of theirs," the Court underscored. .The Court, however, declined to allow a prayer for protecting the status of the employees as on date or to restrain the employer from altering the terms of their service, given that "as long as the Industrial Dispute is pending, rights of the employees under Section 33(1), 33(2)(b) and 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, are protected."."In any event, in the present case on hand, already there is a Reference and that, this Court has directed issuance of corrigendum and the rights of the employees are protected in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court is of the view that, there is no need to incorporate words in the Reference that, “till such time the issue is resolved, there cannot be any alteration of any service condition”, as contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. If such words are incorporated, it would mean that, the Management has decided to take action contrary to the provisions of the Act and it will set a bad precedent. Hence, this Court is not inclined to direct incorporation of such words in the Reference pertaining to the case on hand," the Court said.