IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 546 of 2005(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SOUTHERN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS' UNION, REGISTRATION NO.208/69, REPRESENTED BY L.ROBERT D' SOUZA, GENERAL SECRETARY, RLY.QTRS., NO.ERS-116-B, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADVS. MR.B.GOPAKUMAR, SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR, MR.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, MR.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, MR.P.N.NADESAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAMSADAN, OOLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD-682 030. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.546/2005 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTS. P2: COPY OF REPORT DTD. 30/08/04. P3: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 27/09/04 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J ................................................ W.P(C) No. 546 of 2005 ................................................. Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a workman of the 3rd respondent whose services were terminated. The union espousing the cause of the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the Conciliation officer forwarded Ext.P2 failure report to the Government of India on the same. The Government passed Ext.P3 order declining to refer the dispute for adjudication by the following order: “I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No.8/8/2004/D2 dated 02/09/2004 from the ALC (ERNAKULAM) received in this Ministry on 09/09/2004 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons : “The applicant did not raise the dispute within reasonable period and raised the dispute only after 7 years. Moreover, he did not avail the opportunity to appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority. Hence, no merit.”” 2. Ext.P3 is under challenge before me. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of service was on 6.10.1997 and the petitioner have filed an appeal on 15.1.1997 which was not disposed of. In view of the delay in disposing of the appeal the W.P(C) No. 546 of 2005 -2- union raised the Industrial Dispute on 8.3.2004. According to the petitioner, the delay is not on the part of the petitioner but actually on the part of the management in disposing of the appeal. Therefore according to the petitioner, the reference cannot be denied on the ground of delay. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. The facts as stated by the petitioner is not disputed before me. If that be so, the 1st respondent could not have validly rejected the reference on the ground of delay. Therefore Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to refer the dispute for adjudication within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs // True copy // PA to Judge