SC asks govts to junk old labour cases

The government should not refer the grievance of an employee to the labour court if the complaint is made after a long lapse of time and has become 'stale'. The government has the power to refer a dispute to a labour court but even if the employee has a valid grievance, "a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent," the Supreme Court stated in its judgment, Prabhakar vs joint director. The judgment stated the law of limitation does not apply to industrial disputes. Still, as a matter of "sound public policy", old cases should be ignored.

The question is of utmost importance, the court said, because workers raise disputes after long delay. In this case, the employee approached the Karnataka government 14 years after his termination. The government referred the issue to the labour court. It ordered his reinstatement.

The single judge of the high court upheld the order. But the division bench reversed it stating that there was no "live" dispute due to the lapse of abnormal time. This view was upheld by Supreme Court, which said: "The policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not generally be encouraged unless there is a satisfactory explanation for delay. Otherwise, it would upset the employer's financial arrangement, dislocate an industry and endanger industrial peace."

Tata Steel to continue land grants

The Supreme Court has quashed the order of the Adityapur Industrial Area Development in Jharkhand cancelling the allotment of 100 acres out of 150 acres allotted to Tata Steel Ltd for non-utilisation of the land for industrial use for a long time. The Bihar government had granted interest in 350 acres for 99 years in 1969. It was done under the Government Grants Act. Tata used 200 acres for its steel plant.

Since a large area was not used, the authority asked the company to surrender the rest lying vacant for over 25 years. Since it was not done, the grant was cancelled. The company moved the high court, which dismissed its petition. In its appeal before the Supreme Court the question was whether Tata could be evicted from land which it did not utilise for specific purposes.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the terms of the grant could be invoked only in case of total failure to utilise the land for the specific purposes. It was never intended that "every inch of the land must be utilised for the purpose of establishment of the industry."

BIFR order on Hindustan Motors quashed

The Delhi High Court last week quashed the order of the Registrar of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, restraining Hindustan Motors Ltd from disposing of its fixed assets without the consent of the board. However, the board may pass any order after giving notice to the sick company.

The firm has also given an undertaking that till the board takes a decision, status quo with regard to the properties shall not be changed. In this judgment, Hindustan Motors vs BIFR, the company's grievance was that the order of restraint was passed without any authority, without following due process of law and without giving an opportunity of hearing. The high court accepted these arguments while quashing the order of the board.

Arbitration on power project scrapped

The Uttarakhand High Court last week set aside the award of the arbitrator in the disputes between the state power corporation and Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. The disputes were about the application of rate schedule for electric consumption in constructing the hydro-electric power project in Vishnu Prayag, Chamoli district, and for domestic units for the labour, ministerial and other staff working at the project.

The high court stated that the arbitrator as well as the district judge who approved the award "completely ignored what has been expressly provided under the agreement on the rate schedule… for ignoring the express provisions, the arbitrator has not given any reason, much less justifiable, which is against the basic spirit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."

Insurer to pay interest on damages

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that an insurance company would be liable to pay interest on delayed payment from the date of the industrial accident besides the amount of compensation under the Workman's Compensation Act. The order to the contrary passed by the commissioner in Udaipur was set aside in the case, National Insurance Company vs Smt Raju Bai.

The Act insures an employer against accidents in work places. In this case, the commissioner appointed under the Act ordered compensation from the date of accident suffered by an employee with 12 per cent interest. The insurance company appealed to the high court, but it affirmed the order of the commissioner.

Judge seeks 'pardon' in ITC petition

The Bombay High Court last week delivered a judgment in a trade mark violation complaint moved by ITC Ltd with an unusual apology to all parties.

"First, mea culpa : I heard counsel on both sides at some length almost a year ago. I reserved judgment. Other matters intervened since, and I somehow lost sight of this case. That is no excuse, nor do I seek to make it one. I can only request parties and their advocates to forgive me this lapse," the judge said while allowing ITC's petition. The remark is significant as delay in delivering judgments after closing arguments is a constant gripe of litigants even in Supreme Court. ITC's grievance was that a Kolkata company, NTC Industries, was violating the trade mark and copyright in its artwork in the label 'Gold Flake Kings Red' by imitating its designs. The court ruled that NTC's label for tobacco products was a "slavish imitation" of that of ITC. The Kolkata firm was restrained from continuing with the practice.

HDFC to compensate credit card holder

The National Consumer Commission has dismissed with costs the appeal of HDFC Bank and confirmed the order of the West Bengal Consumer Commission that the bank harassed a credit card holder by repeatedly overcharging him. When he moved the consumer forum, HDFC lured him into a 'settlement' but was again slapped with another false demand, denying settlement. The consumer returned to the forum, which imposed compensation on the bank. That order has been upheld.