* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 9526/2009 % Date of Decision: 06 July, 2009 # Shri Vritra Kumar ..... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. B. B. Jain, Advocate $ Central Bank of India & Ors. .....Respondents ^ Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the Central Bank of India (respondent herein) on 01.06.1989. While working as Peon, he was promoted to the post of Clerk in the Bank on 15.01.1990 and was placed on probation for six months. While he was on probation, he absented from duty. However, his probation was extended by 76 days from 15.07.1990. He was advised to submit medical certificate but he did not do so. He was given memo dated 20.10.1990 by the Bank. The petitioner again absented unauthorizedly from duty w.e.f. 05.02.1992. The respondent bank communicated to him vide memo dated 13.08.1998 (at W.P.(C) No.9526/2009 Page 1 of 4 page 18 of the paper book) that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service of the respondent bank w.e.f 21.05.1993. The petitioner did not take any remedial measure even after receipt of memo dated 13.08.1998 from the respondent bank stating that he is deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent bank w.e.f. 21.05.1993. He raised an industrial dispute for the first time after more than 5 years of memo dated 13.08.1998 about his alleged termination from the service of the respondent bank by filing an application before the Labour Commissioner. Conciliation proceedings were done by the Conciliation Officer who submitted the failure report to the concerned authorities on 12.02.2004 with a copy thereof to the petitioner also. The concerned authorities of the Government after taking into account the failure report of the Conciliation Officer and other relevant material were of the view that there was no existing dispute that was required to be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and therefore vide impugned order dated 31.05.2004 communicated to the petitioner that there was no existing dispute which was required to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner filed a review against the order dated 31.05.2004 and the said review application was also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on the same ground that there was no existing referable dispute. The petitioner, thereafter, slept over the matter and did not take any remedial measure. W.P.(C) No.9526/2009 Page 2 of 4 2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition after about 18 years of his absenting from the respondent bank from duty which he absented w.e.f. 05.02.1992 and now seeks a writ of mandamus to the appropriate Government for referring the dispute relating to his alleged termination for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3 On going through the impugned orders dated 31.05.2004 and 11.10.2006 referred above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the said orders which require interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 In Prem Singh Vs. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors (1994) 1 LLN 538, it was held by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that reference can be declined by the appropriate Government on the ground of delay having regard to the facts of each case and same cannot be assailed on the ground that it is for the Labour Court to mould the relief. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing Process Service Society (1996) 6 SCC 82 and Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal Government Colleged of Eduction 2000 (84) FIR 920 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner's counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case because in both the judgments the delinquent employee had justified the delay and they both relate to belated disputes referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour W.P.(C) No.9526/2009 Page 3 of 4 Court. These are not the cases where the appropriate Government had refused to refer the dispute for adjudication as is the case in the present writ petition. 5 In Ministry of Textile Vs. Murari Lal Gupta & Anr JT 2008 (4) SC 574, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 4 of the said judgment:- “ Undisputedly the writ petition was filed after about five years. The High Court directed reconsideration of the matter and did not in fact direct reference to be made. Except in certain unexceptional cases courts should not direct reference to be made. It is within the domain of the Government to decide as to in which case reference is to be made and in which case reference is not to be done. The reference was apparently made on the ground that the High Court had directed a reference to be made. That was not factually correct. Be that as it may, writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court. But the fact that the project has already been closed cannot be lost sight of. Also relevant is the belated filing of the writ petition.” 6 In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal Gupta's case (Supra), I am of the view that the appropriate Government was fully justified in declining to refer the alleged dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication of the Labour Court. 7 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. July 06, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL a [JUDGE] W.P.(C) No.9526/2009 Page 4 of 4