IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2006 (M/S) Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation………..Petitioner. Versus Regional Conciliation Officer / Assistnat Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun and another. ………….Respondents. Mr. V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned counsel for the petitionerr. Mr. Gopal Narain, Brief Holder for the respondent no.1. 29th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the respondent no. 1, whereby the delay condonation application filed by the respondent no. 2 for making reference has been allowed. 2. Against the aforesaid application, the petitioner had filed an objection stating that the respondent no. 2 was engaged as workman on 1.2.1987 and his services were discontinued on 31.7.96, as such an application was made by the respondent no. 2 on 17.11.2005, which was highly belated. 3. Letter dated 2.6.1998 written by the respondent no. 2 received by the petitioner on 4.6.1998 reveals that the respondent no. 2 did not want to continue in service of the 2 petitioner due to his family problems and had prayed for payment of E.P.F. According to the petitioner, E.P.F. was paid to the respondent no. 2 on the said application. 4. The Conciliation Officer, Dehradun, rejected the objection of the petitioner on the ground that there is no limitation prescribed for making reference under Section 4-K of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment directly on the question of limitation for reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 of Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others (2001) 6 SCC 222 has held as under: “15. There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the union on account of other justified reasons, it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case, when the Government has chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while moulding its relief. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the Government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process its legal culmination.” 6. What has to be examined to apply the law laid down in paragraph 15 is as to whether the dispute was alive or 3 not, when the application for reference was made after a period of nine years. 7. In view of the letter dated 2.6.1998 (contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), there was no dispute alive when respondent no. 2 himself wrote to the petitioner that he was unable to serve with the petitioner and his EPF has to be paid and his EPF was paid accordingly. Thus, the order 28.2.2006 (contained as Annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) cannot sustain in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit (supra) as quoted in paragraph 15. 8. Accordingly, the order-dated 28.2.2006 passed by the respondent no. 1 is quashed. Objections filed by the petitioner against the delay is allowed. The application for making reference is quashed. 9. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 29.7.2008 Rathour