BEFGRE HON'ELE HIGH COURT OF CfiHA’I‘TISGARI-I AT BEASP‘R Witmtiu on No . 2901 ._ Petit;oner : PRABHAKAR ,MOHI‘mAR r S/a 5hr1 Vithoba Monitkar aged abaut 57 years, R/o' 259/3 RM. Rail way Col any , Réipur (Chhatti sgath) -. et sue k? Respendents OL 1. UNION OF INDIA through ~ Seer etary Ministry of Railway Rail Bhawan NEW D&HI THE GENERN.‘ WAGR South Eastérn Railway Garden Reach CALcmA (ms .) THE Assxs'rm LABOUR comxssxonmmentranj AND CONCILLIATION OFFIcm Miniatry of Labom‘ ‘Govt . oi India RAIPm (chhattisgarh) . The giuef Enqineer (construction) south Ea$tern Railway Raipm- (Chhattisgarh) . M zap/7’ contd...z i V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petih'on No. 71 of 2001 Petitioner: Prabhakar Mohitkar Vérsus Respondents: Union of India and others Slme Bench: Hon’blo Mr. Justica Satish K. Apihotrifg’” Present; Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. ‘ None appears for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 8th day of December, 2006) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The petih‘oner was appointed‘as clerk at Balod, District Durg. (C.G.) in South Eastern Railway Construction Division. The pen'tioner was removed nom the services by order dated 2.8. 1976(Annexum P-19). Being aggrieved, the! petin‘oner tiled an application before the Assistant Labour CommiSsioner (Central) and Conciliation Ofdcer, Minishy of V Labour, Government of India, Raipur (C.G.)/respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, by his order i dated 18.7.2000 (Annexure P-23), refused to refer the dispute for adjudication, on the ground of delay. 3. The idenh'cal issue came into consideration before this Court in 1» . the case of Ramkumar Suryavanshi Vs. s€ate of Chhattisgarh and othusl, wherein this Court held that prejudice caused to other'side on account of delay and/or whetlmr the delay was fatal, can be considered only in the process of adjudication before the Labour Court. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ramknmar Suryavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra). m \\ y In the case of Ajaxb singh v. sixmnd Cooperative Mar“£eting- cum-Processing Service Society Limited and anotherz, the Supreme Court in para 10 observed thus:- “10 ...... the pmvisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the I? Limitation Act, ’1963 axe not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is Iequired to be pmved as a matter of fact by showing the teal prejudice and not as a merely i hypotheh‘cal defence. No mfetence to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case Where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or Board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regatding his illegal retrenchment] termination or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages... . ." This dictum was followed subsequently in the cases of Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. College of Education and others3 and 8.M. Nilajkar and others v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka‘. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondent No. 3 is directed to refer the dispute within a period of four weeks from i ag l wwwu m m $0710. the date of receipt of a copy of this order,to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. No order as to costs. Cert$ed copy as per Rules. Sdl- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri A Judge - \ ‘ y {2006 L.T. (CG) 135} (1999) 6 sc 82. (2000) 9 SCC 496 (2003) 4 SCC 27