^^ /?^\7' 1 w ^(w' y^? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 378 of2001 "^. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Akhilesh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Kashi Nath Mishra R/o Karbala Road, Dipatoli Jashpur Nagar, Distt. Jashpur Nagar (CG). VERSVS Govemnient ofIndia/Bharat Saricar Ministry ofIabour/Shram Mantralaya Through ite Desk Qfficer, Rafi Marg New Delhi, (WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA) rSB: Hon'bleMr.SattshK.Agnihotri.J.) Present : Shri 8-P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Barik, Advocate forthe respondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 03rd ofMarch, 2008) 1. The present petition is filed by aii employee workmg in dq)artment of Telecommunication under Sub Divisional Officer (T), Raigarh, froni 01.12.1981. The petitioner was removed fi-om the service by the Sub Divisional Officer (T) from 01.07.1985 by oral order. 2. Accordiaig to leamed courusel appearmg for the petitioner, the petitioner has completed 240 days in the preceding years and as such, the petitioner is entitled to protection under Industrial Law. The petitioner preferred an application before Central Admmistrative Tribunal in May, 1997. The Tribunal, by order dated 19.W.98 (Annexiire P/2), dismissedtfie application holdmg that the Tribunal has nojurisdietion to entertain the dispute covered underthe hidustrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3. The petitioner raised the dispute before tiie Assistant Labour Commissioner (Cestfral). The Assistartf Labour Conmiissioner (Central), by order dated 03.03.1999 (Amiexiire P/3) filed the application without passing an order. Report was accordingly sent to the Central Govemment and the Central Goveniment^ by order dated 11.07,2000 (Annexiire P/6) declmed to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court on the ground fhat the dispute has been raised after laps of 13 years without any justificatioti for the long delay igtioring the fact that fhe petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. Before coiisideration in the matter of Ranikumar Suryavanshi Vs. StMe of Chhattisgarh and others 1 (2006 (111) FLR 946), the identical issue came into consideration before this Court in the matter of Ravikant Sen Vs. Govemnient of India/Bharat Saikar Ministry of Labour and another (W.P. No. 314/02). This Court, allowed the petition on 07.12.06 in followmg terms: 'r5. In the case of Ajaib Singh V. Sirhmd Cooperative Marketmg-Cum- Processmg Service Society Limited and another 2, the Supreme Court in para 10 observed thw: 10. ...,.fhe pi'ovisiom of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the pi'oceedmgs under the Act and that the reliefunder it cannot be denied to the workman merely oii the gi'ound of delay. The plea of delay if raised by ttie employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showitig the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Commissioner can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even iti a case where the delay is showti to be existmg; the Tribimal; Labour Camt or Board, dealing with the case can aq5propriately mould the relief by decKning to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the dem^nd regarding his illegal retrenchment/termmation or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct tfie payment ofpart of the back wages instead offull back wages.... This, dictom was followed subsequently in the case ofQurmatt Smgh Vs. Principal, Govt. College ofEdacation and Otfiers 3 md S.M. Ntlajkar and ofhers v. Telecom District Mmager, Kamataka . 6. Accordmgly, this petition is allowed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to refer the dispate within a period of four weeks to Ihc Central Admmistrative Tribunal for adjudication from the date ofreoeipt ofa copy ofthis order. No order asto costs.M :\ 'A, %_.^7 5. With the conseiit ofthe parties, this petition is accordmgly allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to refer the dispute withiii a period of four weeks to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication from the date ofreceipt of a copy oftltis order. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ./