Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 157 (RAJ)

Madanlal Gurjar v. Executive Engineer

2018-01-11

AJAY RASTOGI, DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

body2018
ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The present appeal is directed against the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 12.07.2017. 2. The cause title of the order indicates that no one has represented the respondent workman but counsel for the appellant-workman informed that he appeared as caveator before the ld. Single Judge and after the matter being heard the present order impugned has been passed dated 12.07.2017. 3. As per the appellant's own statement made in his claim application he had served in the office of the respondent as a daily wager intermittently during the intervening period 1988-1991 & indisputably he approached the Conciliation Officer after inordinate delay of 15 years and at the stage when the State Government made a reference vide its notification dated 20.09.2007, two specific issues were framed which read as infra:- "(i) Whether the Union who has raised the dispute in regard to alleged termination of service of the appellant-workman after 15 years is valid & justified ? (ii) What relief the appellant-workman if his termination dated 01.12.1991 is found to be invalid or unjustified?" 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties on record, the ld. Labour Court in reference to issue No. 1 recorded a finding that the workman approached the Authority by submitting a series of representation and assurance was extended to him and that was considered to be a sufficient justification for condoning inordinate delay of 15 years, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (5) SLR 198 holding that since there is no provision of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the reference cannot be declined by the Labour Court on the ground of delay and accordingly examined the matter on merits and arrived to a conclusion that as there was violation of 25-F of the Act of 1947, the workman deserves indulgence accordingly answered the reference in affirmative terms and while setting aside the order of alleged termination dated 01.12.1991 directed the authorities to reinstate the workman in service without back wage under the impugned award dated 22.09.2016. 5. The award came to be challenged by the respondent-Authority in writ petition No. 550/2017 and the first & foremost question raised for consideration was that in a given case where the appropriate Government consciously made reference as to whether the issue raised by the appellant-workman after 15 years is condonable and the ld. 5. The award came to be challenged by the respondent-Authority in writ petition No. 550/2017 and the first & foremost question raised for consideration was that in a given case where the appropriate Government consciously made reference as to whether the issue raised by the appellant-workman after 15 years is condonable and the ld. Labour Court was under obligation to record its finding on the basis of material available on record and the industrial dispute at all subsist and whether the representations made on which he was extended assurance by the Authorities on the very face value can be a defence of the appellant-workman can be considered to be a sufficient explanation which could grant indulgence of condoning the inordinate delay of 15 years and after such unexplained delay no industrial dispute subsist which requires any further adjudication by the ld. Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. As regards the judgment on which reference was made 2001 (5) SLR 198 is of no application in the facts & circumstances of the instant case, for the reason that it was a case where the reference was made by the appropriate Government in answering the question whether termination of the employee was valid & justified and in the given facts & circumstances, the ld. Labour Court declining to answer on the ground of delay, although, there was no issue of delay made by the appropriate Government, while making a reference, in the instant case, there is a specific issue raised by the appropriate Government while making reference as to whether 15 years delay can at all be considered sufficient in raising the dispute and in the given facts & circumstances the ld. Labour Court was under an obligation to answer as to what would be the effect of dispute being raised after inordinate delay of 15 years and the material which has come on record of making representation & assurance of the authorities inordinate delay of 15 years certainly was not condonable as has been observed by the ld. Single Judge under the impugned judgment. 7. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error in the order impugned which may call for any interference. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.