Background of the Case
An employee was dismissed from service in 1996. He challenged his dismissal. During the pendency of the ID before the Labour Court, the workman attained the age of retirement in 2012. An award was passed by the Labour Court in August 2014, granting relief of 25% back wages with the direction to the Management to count the number of years the workman was out of employment from the date of dismissal for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits.
Management sent its intention (in Feb. 2015) to the workman to settle the issue as per the verdict of the Labour Court, in the event that the workman also accepts the Labour Court verdict as it is. The workman received such communication from the Management. However, the workman died in March 2015. After a gap of 4.5 years, the wife of the deceased workman filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, praying for back wages, continuity of service, and other consequential benefits.
Queries
1. Whether the wife of the deceased workman (who is not a party to the Labour Court proceedings) has the locus standi to challenge the Award of the Labour Court on behalf of her deceased husband now?
2. Whether there is any limitation period prescribed in the ID Act to challenge the Award of the Labour Court?
I request expert views on the above points with suitable court ruling references, if any, for which I shall be thankful.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
25An employee was dismissed from service in 1996. He challenged his dismissal. During the pendency of the ID before the Labour Court, the workman attained the age of retirement in 2012. An award was passed by the Labour Court in August 2014, granting relief of 25% back wages with the direction to the Management to count the number of years the workman was out of employment from the date of dismissal for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits.
Management sent its intention (in Feb. 2015) to the workman to settle the issue as per the verdict of the Labour Court, in the event that the workman also accepts the Labour Court verdict as it is. The workman received such communication from the Management. However, the workman died in March 2015. After a gap of 4.5 years, the wife of the deceased workman filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, praying for back wages, continuity of service, and other consequential benefits.
Queries
1. Whether the wife of the deceased workman (who is not a party to the Labour Court proceedings) has the locus standi to challenge the Award of the Labour Court on behalf of her deceased husband now?
2. Whether there is any limitation period prescribed in the ID Act to challenge the Award of the Labour Court?
I request expert views on the above points with suitable court ruling references, if any, for which I shall be thankful.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Legal Implications of Accepting Back Wages
Presuming that the 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court have been paid and the employee has accepted it without any demur, it can be said that the effort of the spouse of the employee to agitate by way of a writ petition is hit by delay and laches. The legal principle is very much that 'you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.' On the one hand, the back wages were accepted with satisfaction, and later, the descendant cannot challenge that award.
Understanding Writ Petitions
The writ petition is not under the ID Act, but it is an extraordinary remedy provided by the constitution. There is no period of limitation for filing a writ petition, but delay and laches could be fatal to such efforts. Do you have any communication to indicate that the workman had accepted your proposal to settle the matter at 25% back wages? If so, it could be very decisive.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Presuming that the 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court have been paid and the employee has accepted it without any demur, it can be said that the effort of the spouse of the employee to agitate by way of a writ petition is hit by delay and laches. The legal principle is very much that 'you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.' On the one hand, the back wages were accepted with satisfaction, and later, the descendant cannot challenge that award.
Understanding Writ Petitions
The writ petition is not under the ID Act, but it is an extraordinary remedy provided by the constitution. There is no period of limitation for filing a writ petition, but delay and laches could be fatal to such efforts. Do you have any communication to indicate that the workman had accepted your proposal to settle the matter at 25% back wages? If so, it could be very decisive.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sridhar,
The following facts are discernible from your post:
1) The dispute raised by the workman against his dismissal in 1996 was finally disposed of by the Labor Court in August 2014.
2) While the dispute was still pending at the Labor Court, the disputant workman attained the age of superannuation in 2012.
3) Hence, the Labor Court awarded a relief of 25% back wages for the entire period of his non-employment in lieu of reinstatement. However, the Court directed the management to count the period of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation also for the purpose of his terminal benefits.
4) Thus, the benefits arising out of the award are: (1) the workman is entitled to 25% of wages for the period of his non-employment from the date of his dismissal in 1996 to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation in 2012 and (2) For the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits, the management should take into account the entire period of his service from the date of appointment to the date of his notional retirement on superannuation in 2012.
5) Though the award was passed in August 2014, no appeal against the award was preferred either by the management or the workman till his death in March 2015.
6) Now, after a gap of 4.5 years, the wife of the deceased workman preferred an appeal against the award of the Labor Court passed in 2014 by means of a writ petition.
Coming to your queries on this issue, my personal views are as follows:
1) It is well-settled that a legal heir of a deceased workman can pursue the pending industrial dispute already raised by him when he was alive.
2) No statutory remedies against any award of a Labor Court or an Industrial Tribunal have been prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, only non-statutory or constitutional judicial remedies can be taken by any aggrieved party to the dispute by filing a Writ under Article 32 or 226 before the Supreme Court or the High Court respectively when some substantial questions of Law are involved.
In the present case, like I said earlier, no writ petition was filed either by the workman or by the management against the award passed in August 2014 till March 2015, the date of demise of the workman. If I am correct, a writ against the award should be filed within 60 days from the effective date of operation of the award. Though the workman was alive for about almost six months, he did not file any writ. Therefore, the award became the final resolution of the industrial dispute between the management and the deceased workman. This factual position compels me to be doubtful about the very maintainability of the belated writ filed by his wife now.
At the same time, to avoid unnecessary litigation further, I also would like to suggest to the management to initiate some dialogue with the deceased workman's wife to settle the matter by offering some higher compensation.
Regards
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
The following facts are discernible from your post:
1) The dispute raised by the workman against his dismissal in 1996 was finally disposed of by the Labor Court in August 2014.
2) While the dispute was still pending at the Labor Court, the disputant workman attained the age of superannuation in 2012.
3) Hence, the Labor Court awarded a relief of 25% back wages for the entire period of his non-employment in lieu of reinstatement. However, the Court directed the management to count the period of service from the date of his dismissal till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation also for the purpose of his terminal benefits.
4) Thus, the benefits arising out of the award are: (1) the workman is entitled to 25% of wages for the period of his non-employment from the date of his dismissal in 1996 to the date of his attaining the age of superannuation in 2012 and (2) For the purpose of computation of his terminal benefits, the management should take into account the entire period of his service from the date of appointment to the date of his notional retirement on superannuation in 2012.
5) Though the award was passed in August 2014, no appeal against the award was preferred either by the management or the workman till his death in March 2015.
6) Now, after a gap of 4.5 years, the wife of the deceased workman preferred an appeal against the award of the Labor Court passed in 2014 by means of a writ petition.
Coming to your queries on this issue, my personal views are as follows:
1) It is well-settled that a legal heir of a deceased workman can pursue the pending industrial dispute already raised by him when he was alive.
2) No statutory remedies against any award of a Labor Court or an Industrial Tribunal have been prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, only non-statutory or constitutional judicial remedies can be taken by any aggrieved party to the dispute by filing a Writ under Article 32 or 226 before the Supreme Court or the High Court respectively when some substantial questions of Law are involved.
In the present case, like I said earlier, no writ petition was filed either by the workman or by the management against the award passed in August 2014 till March 2015, the date of demise of the workman. If I am correct, a writ against the award should be filed within 60 days from the effective date of operation of the award. Though the workman was alive for about almost six months, he did not file any writ. Therefore, the award became the final resolution of the industrial dispute between the management and the deceased workman. This factual position compels me to be doubtful about the very maintainability of the belated writ filed by his wife now.
At the same time, to avoid unnecessary litigation further, I also would like to suggest to the management to initiate some dialogue with the deceased workman's wife to settle the matter by offering some higher compensation.
Regards
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Dear Sri KK!HR,
Thank you for your views. The workman was not in agreement with our proposal during his lifetime. My doubt is whether the wife of the deceased workman has the locus standi to challenge the Award of the Labour Court, especially now after a gap of nearly 5 years from the date of the Labour Court Award, as she is not a party to the Industrial Dispute disposed of by the Labour Court.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your views. The workman was not in agreement with our proposal during his lifetime. My doubt is whether the wife of the deceased workman has the locus standi to challenge the Award of the Labour Court, especially now after a gap of nearly 5 years from the date of the Labour Court Award, as she is not a party to the Industrial Dispute disposed of by the Labour Court.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are advised to discuss the matter with your lawyer.
In the recent past, I came across an order by the Supreme Court stating that three years is the limit, but I do not remember the exact case to cite for you. However, with my limited understanding of the matter, this case does not seem to have merit for three reasons:
1. The employee received the benefit as per the pronouncement of the labor court and did not intend to challenge the order passed by the labor court.
2. To file a writ before the High Court is 60-90 days against any order passed or review petition.
3. The wife of the deceased cannot be a party to the case in this instance.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the recent past, I came across an order by the Supreme Court stating that three years is the limit, but I do not remember the exact case to cite for you. However, with my limited understanding of the matter, this case does not seem to have merit for three reasons:
1. The employee received the benefit as per the pronouncement of the labor court and did not intend to challenge the order passed by the labor court.
2. To file a writ before the High Court is 60-90 days against any order passed or review petition.
3. The wife of the deceased cannot be a party to the case in this instance.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The orders/award of the Labor Court pronounced in August 2014 remain unimplemented. If the management had accepted the award in full, it could have deposited 25% of the back wages with the Court and any terminal benefit of gratuity for the entire service with the Controlling Authority under the PG Act, 1972, as the award pertains only to monetary compensation. However, the management appears indecisive about the award, having made up its mind to accept it only to send a letter to the workman in February 2015 asking for his willingness. Unfortunately, the workman died subsequently. Therefore, the fact that no amount was received by the workman under the award has led his wife to file a writ of appeal against the award. The maintainability of the writ itself is doubtful given the finality of the resolution of the industrial dispute between the parties, the unchallenged award until the workman's death, the doubtful locus standi of the deceased's wife to contest the award, and the inordinate delay.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Umakanthanji, for shedding light on the case and correcting me regarding the case and its merits and demerits.
While I was reviewing the cases, I came across a case that was admitted by the High Court after 19 years [Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July 2018]. The case was filed by the son of a deceased person, claiming his service on compassionate grounds as he was a minor at the time of his father's death.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
While I was reviewing the cases, I came across a case that was admitted by the High Court after 19 years [Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July 2018]. The case was filed by the son of a deceased person, claiming his service on compassionate grounds as he was a minor at the time of his father's death.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Compassionate Ground Appointment and Legal Proceedings
Yes, Mr. Prabat, your citation is valid as the claim relates to the compassionate ground appointment of the son of a deceased government servant who died in harness. The delay was condonable as the claimant was a minor at the relevant time.
In the case at hand, due to the impossibility of reinstatement as the workman had already attained the age of superannuation, the Labor Court likely, in the exercise of its discretionary powers vested in Section 11A of the ID Act, considered that justice would be served by ordering continuity of service with 25% back wages. Neither the concerned workman nor the management appealed, and both remained idle until his death. Now, after a lapse of 4.5 years, the wife would have no grounds for appeal under Article 226 except for enhanced compensation or interest on the amount of compensation computed under the award for the default period, provided she can satisfactorily explain the delay to the Court. Hence, it is suggested that the management may initiate a dialogue for an amicable settlement.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, Mr. Prabat, your citation is valid as the claim relates to the compassionate ground appointment of the son of a deceased government servant who died in harness. The delay was condonable as the claimant was a minor at the relevant time.
In the case at hand, due to the impossibility of reinstatement as the workman had already attained the age of superannuation, the Labor Court likely, in the exercise of its discretionary powers vested in Section 11A of the ID Act, considered that justice would be served by ordering continuity of service with 25% back wages. Neither the concerned workman nor the management appealed, and both remained idle until his death. Now, after a lapse of 4.5 years, the wife would have no grounds for appeal under Article 226 except for enhanced compensation or interest on the amount of compensation computed under the award for the default period, provided she can satisfactorily explain the delay to the Court. Hence, it is suggested that the management may initiate a dialogue for an amicable settlement.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In this case, the Award was passed on 23.08.2014. No copy of the Award was received by the Management until the first week of December 2014. Hence, Management initiated the process to obtain the certified copy of the Award from the Labour Court, which was issued on 09.12.2014. Since the Labour Court directed the Management to pay the relief of 25% of wages within three months from the date of receiving the Award copy, the Management decided to communicate with the workman to convey its intention to abide by the Labour Court's Award, provided he also accepts it as is. This action was taken to ensure timely compliance with the Award, especially considering the workman who reached the age of superannuation during the pending disposal of the Industrial Dispute by the Labour Court. Therefore, the Management is prepared to proceed in either direction. In fact, the Management has made multiple attempts to settle the issue with the deceased workman's wife, but she remains steadfast in challenging the award.
I would like to express my sincere thanks once again to all the experts who provided valuable insights on the issue I presented.
Regards, V. Sridhar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would like to express my sincere thanks once again to all the experts who provided valuable insights on the issue I presented.
Regards, V. Sridhar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Decision of the Labour Court
The original posting does not shed light on one important aspect: what is the decision of the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of the workman? From the facts posted, it is suggested that the punishment of dismissal has been set aside and he has been directed to be reinstated (notionally) in service. It is only that back wages have been restricted to 25%. Thus, the question that arises is whether there is an illegality or irregularity in not awarding the back wages in full. It could be that the wife of the deceased employee had filed a writ petition on this aspect under Article 227. Please verify. If so, the delay may not be of much consequence unless it amounts to laches.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The original posting does not shed light on one important aspect: what is the decision of the Labour Court regarding the dismissal of the workman? From the facts posted, it is suggested that the punishment of dismissal has been set aside and he has been directed to be reinstated (notionally) in service. It is only that back wages have been restricted to 25%. Thus, the question that arises is whether there is an illegality or irregularity in not awarding the back wages in full. It could be that the wife of the deceased employee had filed a writ petition on this aspect under Article 227. Please verify. If so, the delay may not be of much consequence unless it amounts to laches.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Labour Court's Conclusion
The Labour Court has concluded that the punishment imposed on the workman is not justified. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, and the nature of charges leveled against the workman are proved, the court is of the view that by exercising its discretionary power under section 11A of the Act, the denial of 75% of back wages would meet the end of justice. As such, the Labour Court awarded 25% of wages as compensation for the non-employment period of the workman from the date of dismissal. In the Award, the court nowhere concludes that the dismissal is set aside.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Labour Court has concluded that the punishment imposed on the workman is not justified. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, and the nature of charges leveled against the workman are proved, the court is of the view that by exercising its discretionary power under section 11A of the Act, the denial of 75% of back wages would meet the end of justice. As such, the Labour Court awarded 25% of wages as compensation for the non-employment period of the workman from the date of dismissal. In the Award, the court nowhere concludes that the dismissal is set aside.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Legal heirs and writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Good inputs from seniors. Here, the award of the Labour Court was challenged by the wife of the deceased workman under Article 226 of the Constitution by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the hon'ble High Court.
The first issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ challenging an award that was delivered when the workman was alive. Normally, as I understand, a legal heir is allowed to be impleaded as a party to a suit/petition during the pendency of which the petitioner dies. In this case, the workman died before filing the writ. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy and can be filed by anyone whose fundamental rights are violated or who has legal rights in the matter of the dispute. So, as I understand, a legal heir can possibly invoke writ jurisdiction in this case as both parties have legal rights in the dispute and also likely on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 20 (right to life and livelihood).
Filing a writ after a delay
The second issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ after 4.5 years following the delivery of the award in 2014. The law prescribes a time limit for appeals and civil suits, and as far as I gather, there is no time limit prescribed under Article 226 for filing a writ, it being an extraordinary remedy. However, the law discourages delay as it renders issues stale by the passage of time and change of circumstances but does not outrightly reject a petition on this ground if it results in a serious miscarriage of justice or if the delay is due to justifiable reasons.
So, you need to consult a lawyer in service and labor matters and prepare your grounds to rebut the opposite party's contentions. These are only views, and others are welcome to correct them.
Regards, B. Saikumar HR & Labour Relations Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
Good inputs from seniors. Here, the award of the Labour Court was challenged by the wife of the deceased workman under Article 226 of the Constitution by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the hon'ble High Court.
The first issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ challenging an award that was delivered when the workman was alive. Normally, as I understand, a legal heir is allowed to be impleaded as a party to a suit/petition during the pendency of which the petitioner dies. In this case, the workman died before filing the writ. However, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy and can be filed by anyone whose fundamental rights are violated or who has legal rights in the matter of the dispute. So, as I understand, a legal heir can possibly invoke writ jurisdiction in this case as both parties have legal rights in the dispute and also likely on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 20 (right to life and livelihood).
Filing a writ after a delay
The second issue is whether the legal heirs can file a writ after 4.5 years following the delivery of the award in 2014. The law prescribes a time limit for appeals and civil suits, and as far as I gather, there is no time limit prescribed under Article 226 for filing a writ, it being an extraordinary remedy. However, the law discourages delay as it renders issues stale by the passage of time and change of circumstances but does not outrightly reject a petition on this ground if it results in a serious miscarriage of justice or if the delay is due to justifiable reasons.
So, you need to consult a lawyer in service and labor matters and prepare your grounds to rebut the opposite party's contentions. These are only views, and others are welcome to correct them.
Regards, B. Saikumar HR & Labour Relations Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Legal Clarification on Absconding & Contract Labour.pdf