THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.32928 of 1998 Dated 15.02.2008 Between: Y.N.S.V.Prasad. .. Petitioner. And Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 32928 of 1998 ORDER: Questioning the proceedings of the Government dated 29.05.1998, whereby the Government decided not to refer the dispute raised by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Union on the ground that the dispute raised by them did not merit reference for adjudication as it was a belated case, since the cause of action had arisen ten years ago, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), requires the Government, if it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, to refer the dispute to a Tribunal/Labour Court as the case may be. In exercising the jurisdiction under Section 10, the appropriate Government is empowered to determine prima facie whether an industrial dispute exists, whether the claim is frivolous or bogus or is put forth for extraneous or irrelevant reasons or is not germane to the determination. (State of Bombay v. K.P.Krishnan[1]; Ram Avtar Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and another[2]). It is also well settled that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can examine the reasons given by the appropriate Government for refusing to make a reference and direct the Government to reconsider the matter. 3. The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the reasons given by the Government, refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal is based on relevant considerations or is based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds? 4. Even if there has been a delay of ten years in seeking reference, it is well settled, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another[3], that since the legislature has, in its wisdom, thought it fit not to prescribe any period of limitation, the mere fact that the dispute has been raised belatedly would not oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, which, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, is empowered to mould the relief and deny wages either in whole or in part to the delinquent employee on whom punishment has been imposed by the employer. Whether the delay of ten years would disentitle the workman to the relief sought for, whether the relief sought for should be moulded in view of the delay, are all matters for the Industrial Tribunal to consider on the material on record and not for the Government to adjudicate in examining a request for reference. The decision of the Government in refusing to refer the dispute cannot, therefore, be said to be based on relevant considerations. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings of the Government dated 29.05.1998 is set aside. The Government shall reconsider the matter and take an appropriate decision on the basis of relevant considerations as to whether the dispute raised by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Union should be referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication or not. Since the dispute raised relates to the year 1997 it is appropriate for the Government to take a decision at the earliest, and in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 15th February, 2008 v v [1] AIR 1960 SC 1223 [2] AIR 1985 SC 915 [3] (1999) 6 SCC, page 32