Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 67 (KAR)

MANJULA v. GADAGOLI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

2005-01-31

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2005
MOHAN SHANTHANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned order dated 3-5-2003, the Government has refused to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner herein to the Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the petitioner has raised the dispute belatedly. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was working as an Literate assistant on daily wages from 30-1-1986 to 13-3-1987 in the office of the 3rd respondent. According to her, she was terminated from services with effect from 13-3-1987. She raised the dispute on 12-11-2002. The State government by the impugned order, refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to Labour Court on the ground that the dispute is raised by the petitioner belatedly. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mypower Mazdoor welfare Union v The Secretary and Commissioner, Social Welfare and labour Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Another , submitted that the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the Us, which is exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. According to him, he has been making series of representations before the concerned authorities for reinstatement and the same are not considered by the authorities concerned. Therefore, the question as to whether the dispute is raised by the petitioner belatedly or not, according to him, has to be determined by the Labour Court and not by the Government. Per contra, Sri G. P. Suresh, learned High Court government Pleader argued in support of the order passed by the State government by contending that no useful purpose will be served even if the matter is referred to Labour Court for adjudication as the dispute is raised by the petitioner after the lapse of about 15 years. ( 4 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case cited supra has held that as no period of limitation is prescribed for making the reference, the appropriate Government has no power to reject the claim merely on the ground of the same being belated or stale. By now it is well-settled that while exercising the power under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act, the function of the Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. By now it is well-settled that while exercising the power under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act, the function of the Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Thus, in performing its administrative function, the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by section 10 of the Act. The Labour Court in such cases has to determine as to whether the claim of the petitioner has become stale or not depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following order is made: the order dated 3-5-2003 passed by the State Government is quashed. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. If the matter is referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, the labour Court shall not be influenced by the observations made in the course of this order and the question of delay and laches will have to be considered by the Labour Court independently on the facts and circumstances of the case. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .