-
by sayum
28 January 2026 6:55 AM
"Absence of Prior Demand No Bar to Reference: Dispute Exists If There’s a Real Grievance", In a judgment of far-reaching consequence for industrial relations, the Supreme Court categorically ruled that “there is no statutory requirement under the ID Act to first serve a demand on the employer before invoking conciliation.” Declining to quash the reference of a dispute raised by contract labour alleging unfair labour practices and seeking regularisation, the Court upheld the validity of a reference made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even in the absence of a prior written demand or formal notice to the management.
The Court held that the statute permits reference of not only an “existing” dispute but also an “apprehended” one and that any contrary interpretation would defeat the preventive and remedial objectives of the Act. The decision sets a significant precedent in allowing contract labour, working through registered contractors, to access adjudicatory forums without being thwarted by procedural objections at the threshold.
The two-judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “The appropriate Government, in its armchair, while referring an Industrial Dispute for resolution, keeps in its perspective industrial peace and prosperity. The administrative decision merely looks at an Industrial Dispute or an apprehended Industrial Dispute.”
“To Insist on Prior Demand Is to Rewrite the Law”: Court Rejects Employer’s Objection as Contrary to Legislative Intent
The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Premium Transmission Pvt Ltd, challenging a reference made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad, on January 28, 2020. The reference, arising out of a charter of demands made by contract workers through a union, was opposed on the ground that no prior notice or demand had been served upon the management, and that the union had approached the Conciliation Officer directly.
The management contended that this failure to first initiate bilateral negotiations rendered the entire conciliation and subsequent reference illegal. But the Court categorically held, “To insist on a written demand and its rejection as a precondition to conciliation is to rewrite the law and defeat the very intent of preventive adjudication.”
Relying on the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, the Bench emphasised that the existence of an industrial dispute does not hinge on a formal demand, especially where the subject matter of the dispute includes the core question of whether the workers are in fact employees of the principal employer. “In a situation where an unresolved dispute subsists, the same is resolved through the process of conciliation,” said the Court, noting that the employer’s denial of status itself constituted a live industrial dispute.
“Sham Contract Allegation Must Be Decided by Industrial Court, Not Shut Down at Threshold” – SC Affirms Workers’ Right to Seek Adjudication
Rejecting the employer’s repeated reliance on Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Prabhakar v. Joint Director, the Court held that these precedents dealt with belated or abandoned claims and cannot be invoked where there is an ongoing and active dispute about the very nature of employment. The workers, represented by the Aurangabad Mazdoor Union, had alleged that their engagement through contractors was a sham and camouflage, and that in reality, they were working under the direct control of the management. This allegation was strongly contested by the company.
But the Court made it clear that such factual disputes must be decided in evidence before the Industrial Court, and not dismissed at the threshold. “The very denial of the status could also be considered as a dispute in the established facts and circumstances,” observed the Court.
The Bench directed that the Industrial Court must frame the following issues and proceed with adjudication: whether the contracts through which the workers were employed are sham and nominal, and whether the management is the principal employer. “To keep the ongoing adjudication in line with the principles laid down by this Court, the Labour Court is directed to frame two issues… and dispose of the Reference expeditiously, preferably within four months,” the judgment reads.
“Section 10 Is Not Meant to Be Weaponised Through Preliminary Objections” – Supreme Court Dismantles Delay Tactics
In strong words of caution against procedural tactics employed to derail industrial adjudication, the Supreme Court invoked its earlier ruling in DP Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, warning against the use of preliminary objections to prevent workmen from accessing remedies. “We were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits,” the Court recalled from DP Maheshwari, and observed that such tactics “convert a mechanism of immediate relief into an engine of delay.”
The Court reiterated, “The power to refer an 'apprehended' dispute is the statutory application of the old adage ‘a stitch in time saves nine’. It enables the State to intervene before industrial peace is shattered.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Relief Order That Prematurely Granted Wages – “Status of Workman Must First Be Decided”
In a companion judgment delivered the same day in Premium Transmission Pvt Ltd v. Kishan Subhash Rathod & Others, the Court set aside an interim order passed by the Industrial Court on January 17, 2023, which had directed the employer to allow 118 contract workers to resume work and pay their wages pending adjudication of the main dispute.
The Court held that while the main reference was rightly allowed to proceed, the grant of interim relief in favour of persons whose status as ‘workmen’ had not yet been determined was legally unsustainable. “The question on relationship between the Management and the Workman is for decision in Reference (IT) No. 1 of 2021. At this stage, the interim prayer amounts to a virtual pre-judgment of the main dispute between the parties,” the Bench stated.
However, the Court clarified that this does not preclude the workers from seeking appropriate interim relief before the Industrial Court after their status is established.
“Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”: Where There Is a Right, There Must Be a Remedy
At the heart of the judgment is a reaffirmation of the fundamental legal principle that denial of status or rights cannot be used to shut the door on justice. “Ubi jus ibi remedium — where there is a right, there is a remedy — is a principle to be kept in perspective,” the Court stated, adding that through the reference, the workers were only seeking a forum to prove their claims.
In upholding the reference and remanding the interim relief for fresh consideration, the Supreme Court has struck a balance between procedural discipline and substantive justice, while reaffirming the Industrial Disputes Act as a welfare legislation meant not to frustrate rights but to preserve industrial harmony through resolution, not obstruction.
Date of Decision: 27 January 2026
