IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.894 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:27.1.2010 Shri Rajinder Kataria -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. PK Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.3. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge quashing order of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ground of claim of the appellant being stale. 2. Services of the appellant were terminated in the year 1987. He raised an industrial dispute but the appropriate Government declined to make reference on the ground that criminal case was pending against the LPA No.894 of 2009 (O&M) workman. The workman filed writ petition which was dismissed. On acquittal by criminal court in the year 1996, the workman again raised industrial dispute on which reference was ordered to be made on 15.12.2006. The management challenged making of reference after 19 years of termination of services of the workman, relying upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2000) 1 SCC 371 and Nedungadi Bank Limited v. KP Madhavankutty and others, (2000) 2 SCC 455. Reference was defended by submitting that order of the appropriate Government being administrative in nature, was not amenable to writ of certiorari. Reliance was been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harnam Singh and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2001) 10 SCC 526. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the management holding that the appropriate Government had failed to apply its mind while making the reference particularly the fact that the reference had been earlier 2 LPA No.894 of 2009 (O&M) declined, which order has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 3.8.1994 in CWP No.12903 of 1993. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. In view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Limited and Nedungadi Bank Limited (supra), it is well settled that stale claim could not be referred for adjudication. The reference was earlier declined which order was upheld by this Court. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 6. As regards judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harnam Singh (supra), therein the dispute whether the workman was employed by the management or not was sought to be decided by the appropriate Government while considering the question of desirability of making the reference. It was in that context that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that appropriate Government could not finally adjudicate upon the matter, as in exercising power of making reference under section 10 of 3 LPA No.894 of 2009 (O&M) the Act, the appropriate Government was not acting as an adjudicatory authority. The said judgment does not, in any way, help the appellant, in defending reference which was totally uncalled for, claim of the appellant being belated and being covered by earlier round of litigation. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 27, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 4 LPA No.894 of 2009 (O&M) 5