1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5602/2004 Gopal Singh Sisodiya Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 2.4.2007 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Monoj Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, for the respondents. *** By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the decision of the appropriate government not to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner workman with regard to his termination being delayed. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner- workman entered in the services of the employer – Hindustan Zinc Ltd on 9.1.1968 and stood terminated from service under an order dated 12.5.1973 passed by the Chief Superintendent, Zinc Smelter. Being aggrieved by the termination from service under the order dated 12/14.5.1973 an industrial dispute was raised by the workman on 6.12.1983. The appropriate government at the first instance refused to make reference, however, at a subsequent stage by considering the representation submitted by the workman the 2 dispute was referred to the labour court, Udaipur for its adjudication in the terms as to whether the termination of workman Sh. Gopal Singh from service is justified and legal, if not, then for what relief the workman is entitled. Being aggrieved by the reference made by the appropriate government as above under a notification dated 6.3.1987 the employer preferred a writ petition before this Court and that came to be accepted by the judgment dated 23.3.1992. This Court while accepting the writ petition also considered the issue with regard to delay in raising the industrial dispute. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 23.3.1992 reads as follows: “Then comes the question: whether the Government was justified in making the reference after the lapse of fourteen years of the existence of the so-called industrial dispute? The services of the non-petitioner No.2 Gopal Singh were terminated by the petitioner with effect from May 14,1973, and the respondent No.2 rest contended with the order of termination nearly for about ten years and made an application before the Conciliation Officer on December 6, 1983. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the Government, vide its order dated April 18, 1985, refused to refer the dispute, but subsequently, vide its order dated March 6, 1987, referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Though no limitation is provided under Section 10(1) of the Act to refer the dispute for adjudication by the State Government but it must be borne in mind 3 that it will be inequitable to refer the Stale Claim for adjudication after the lapse of about fourteen years as it will likely to adversely affect the industrial harmony by way of reviving the old controversy. Though the words “any time” appearing in Section 10 of the Act does not admit any limitation to the power of the State Government to refer the dispute for adjudication, but the same cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. An industrial dispute should not be referred, which already stood settled buy the lapse of time. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of : Jharakhud Collieries (P.) Ltd. Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal (1960(II)L.L.J. 71 (S.C.)) that the policy of industrial adjudication is that every State Claim should not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay, as , apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claim after long lapse of time, it is necessary, also, to take into account the unsettling effect, which it is likely to have on the employer's financial arrangements and to avoid dislocation of the industry. In the present case, the delay of ten years for raising the dispute has not been explained by the respondents and earlier the State Government declining to make reference on the ground of delay, also, but later on, while passing the order Annexure.6, even did not consider the ground of delay and ignored the same.” The judgment dated 23.3.1992 acquired finality up to the Supreme Court as a Special Leave Petition preferred by the workman came to be rejected by the order dated 2.11.1993. The workman after disposal of the issue again submitted a 4 representation to the appropriate government on 13.8.2003 and the respondent after considering the same by the communication dt. 16.12.2003 conveyed the petitioner about refusal to make reference being belated. Hence, this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no delay on part of the workman as in the entire period he was agitating his cause before the competent courts. It is further stated that the workman, as a matter of fact, is not at all responsible, if, the appropriate government failed to give any reasons for altering its decision at earlier stage by making reference under the notification dated 6.3.1987. According to counsel for the petitioner it was for the appropriate government to give reasons for changing its decision, and therefore, the denial for making reference on the ground of delay is absolutely unwarranted. I do not find any merit in the contentions so raised. It is not in dispute that the workman was terminated from service on 12.5.1973 and at the first instance he raised industrial dispute on 1.12.1983. The delay in raising the dispute was 5 considered by this Court in earlier writ petition that came to be decided by the judgment dated 23.3.1992. This Court in quite unambiguous terms reached at the conclusion that the delay of 10 years in raising the dispute was unexplained and in normal course such stale matters cannot be referred for their adjudication. The finding given by this Court remained intact up to Supreme Court. Once this issue has been decided by the Court, it was not open for the appropriate government to reconsider the same, therefore, it rightly declined to refer the dispute. I do not find any merit in this petition for writ, accordingly dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. J.Goyal