Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Rohitash v. Union of India

2015-04-13

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2015
ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 not considering the case of the petitioner fit to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. As per the case of the petitioner, he was working with the respondent as a workman since 03.04.1976. On 10.12.1990, a charge sheet was issued to him, and thereafter the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, however according to the petitioner he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing in the said enquiry and his services were terminated on 22.03.1991. It appears that the petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted a failure report as per Annexure/2, and the matter was forwarded to the Government for taking appropriate decision. The respondent No.1 thereafter vide the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 refused to refer the dispute to the labour court for adjudication on the ground that the dispute was raised by the petitioner belatedly after more than 20 years without any justification for the delay. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Vivek Goyal for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kuldeep Singh Versus General Manager, Instrument Design Development And Facilities Centre & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 176 , and the decision of this Court in case of Ganesh Singh Versus State of Raj. & Ors., 2009 (4) WLC 418 and in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Shopping Centre Vikas Samiti Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006 (1) RLW 588, submitted that the respondent No.1 could not have declined to make reference only on the ground of delay and latches. He also submitted that the respondent No.1 had failed to mention any reasons for declining to make the reference and hence the said order of the respondent No.1 is bad in the eye of law. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute in the year 2011 after his alleged illegal termination in 1991. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute in the year 2011 after his alleged illegal termination in 1991. From the copy of application, Annexure/1 by which the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner, it clearly transpires that there was no explanation or justification given by the petitioner for raising the said dispute after 20 years of his alleged illegal termination. It cannot be gainsaid that the appropriate government should exercise powers under Section 10 of the said Act reasonably and rationally and not mechanically. It is bound to consider whether any industrial dispute in fact exists for adjudication by the Labour Court. A dispute could not be said to exist if the same was not kept alive by the workman till the period it is sought to be referred to the Labour Court. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had kept the dispute alive for twenty years or that there was reasonable justification to raise the dispute after twenty years. The Court therefore does not see anything wrong if the reference was declined by the respondent No.1 on the ground of unexplained gross delay. 5. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to reproduce the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty (2000) 2 SCC 455 , as under:-“6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.......” 6. It is also held in case of Haryana State Coop. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.......” 6. It is also held in case of Haryana State Coop. Land Development Vs Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91 , as under:- “18. It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio.......” 7. Even, in case of Kuldeep Singh Versus General Manager, Instrument Design Development And Facilities Centre & Anr., (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that if sufficient material is not put forth by the workman explaining enormous delay, it would be fatal. 8. From the aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the Govt. is not bound to refer the stale cases of industrial disputes to the labour court for adjudication, if the workman had failed to explain the enormous delay occurred in raising such dispute. The decision of this Court in case of Ganesh Singh Versus State of Raj. & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not help the petitioner, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has declined to refer the dispute on the ground that the petitioner had failed to justify the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also fairly submitted that the petitioner had not explained in his application as to why he did not take any action for 20 years after his alleged illegal termination. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner after more than two and half years of passing it. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner after more than two and half years of passing it. 9. In view of the above, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 which would call for any interference of this Court, more particularly while exercising equitable and extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.