* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 7100/2008 % Date of Decision: 16 July, 2009 # SHRI RAM SINGH ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. G.S. Charya, Advocate. VERSUS $ THE MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Amitesh Mishra, 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) This writ petition filed by the workman (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 08.05.2007 passed by Mr. S.K. Sarvaria, POLC XII, Delhi rejecting the reference on the ground of delay of 14 years. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was employed as Driver with Delhi Transport Corporation (the respondent herein) and his services were dispensed with because of proved misconduct on his part w.e.f. 11.04.1989. He raised an industrial dispute with regard to his removal from service of Delhi Transport Corporation after 14 years of his removal and the same was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court vide reference letter dated 30.04.2004. W.P.(C) No.7100/2008 Page 1 of 4 3 It is not disputed that the services of the petitioner were removed from the respondent corporation in 1989 and that he had raised industrial dispute with regard to his removal for the first time in 2003 i.e. after 14 years of his removal. In view of delay of 14 years on the part of the petitioner in raising the industrial dispute with regard to his removal, the Court below has rejected the reference vide award dated 08.05.2007, impugned in the present writ petition. 4 The court below has referred to several precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the impugned award and in all those judgments it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although the provisions of Limitation Act does not apply in case of industrial dispute but that does not give a license to anybody to keep sleeping over the matter and raise the dispute after any number of years. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred in the impugned award that a stale dispute cannot be considered as an industrial dispute. 5 In Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma & Anr (2006) 6 SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its two earlier judgments in Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Workmen 3 (2006) 2 SCC 329 and S.M. Nilajkar Vs. Telecom District Manager 5 (2003) 4 SCC 27, has held that a dispute which is stale cannot be a subject matter of reference. Paras 20 & 21 of this judgment are relevant and the same reads as follows:- “20 The case of Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Workmen in turn, refers to the judgments in Neungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P.Madhayankutty and S.M. Nilajkar Vs. Telecom District Manager. This Court held that even though there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an Industrial Tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred to as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen. The Court has held that a delay of four years in raising the dispute even after re- employment of most of the old workmen was held to be fatal. In W.P.(C) No.7100/2008 Page 2 of 4 Nedungadi Bank Ltd. case this Court held a delay of seven year to be fatal and disentitled the workmen to any relief. 21 In our opinion, a dispute which is stale could not be a subject matter of reference.” 6 In Haryana State Corporation Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91, in para 13 of the said judgment it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:- “In Ajaib Singh the management did not raise any plea of delay. The Court observed that had such plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances which prevented him from approaching the court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the Government. In that case, the Labour Court granted the relief, but the same was denied to the workman only by the High Court. The Court referred to the purport and object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act only with a view to find out as to whether the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable or not. Although, the court cannot import a period of limitation when the statute does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making a reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.” 7 In the present case, the management had taken an objection of delay in its written statement filed before the Court below. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner being the workman has failed to give any explanation why he was sleeping over the matter for 14 years if he had any grievance against his removal by the respondent corporation in 1989. 8 In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred in the impugned award and the cases mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9 In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition W.P.(C) No.7100/2008 Page 3 of 4 which fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY 16, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'a' W.P.(C) No.7100/2008 Page 4 of 4