Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 541 (GUJ)

Natvargiri Shivgiri Goswami v. Union of India

2010-11-15

K.A.PUJ

body2010
JUDGMENT : K.A. Puj, J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 09.11.2009 of the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya whereby the reference sought by the petitioner was denied on the ground that the petitioner has raised the matter belatedly after a lapse of around 13 years from the time of his alleged disengagement. Heard Mr. A.G. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the memo of petition. Mr. Vyas has submitted that the petitioner came to know about the fact that his junior was appointed and hence, he sought the reference. He has, therefore, submitted that there is no question of delay in the matter and even otherwise, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to refuse to grant reference on the ground of delay. He has submitted that it is the function of the Labour Court to decide and even at the most, the petitioner cannot be entitled to back wages. However, the petitioner's right can certainly be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court by allowing the reference. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned communication passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Vyas and the averments in the petition, the Court is of the view that there is no substance in the present petition. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was recruited and appointed as Branch Post Master, Piprali, Tal. Umrala, Dist. Bhavnagar w.e.f. 23.04.1991 to 23.03.1993. The petitioner's services were terminated w.e.f. 23.03.1993. The petitioner has not taken any action. On the contrary, the petitioner was given an appointment on vacant post from 02.06.2000 to 03.08.2000 on the post of E.D.D.A. The petitioner, thereafter, raised industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in March 2003. The same was considered by the Conciliation Officer and vide communication dated 09.11.2009, the respondents have refused to make any reference to the Labour Court or Industrial Court. The facts reveal that the cause of action arise on 23.03.1993, when his services were said to have been terminated and yet the petitioner has not taken any step. On the contrary, the petitioner was given an ad hoc appointment in the year 2000 on vacant post. The facts reveal that the cause of action arise on 23.03.1993, when his services were said to have been terminated and yet the petitioner has not taken any step. On the contrary, the petitioner was given an ad hoc appointment in the year 2000 on vacant post. Even on that point of time also, no steps were taken by the petitioner and for the first time, the petitioner raised industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Act in March, 2003. The authorities have, therefore, rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner raising the dispute under Section 10 of the Act. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities and hence, no interference is called for in the decision taken by the authorities. The petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. Petition Summarily Dismissed.