M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR D.B. Hon’ble Shri Ra'eev Gu ta C.J. 8; Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. W.P. No. 3993 of 2004 The Union of India 85 others Versus Narendra Singh Thakur ORDER For con31d§rat1on Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /‘ Hon’ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta sal— . miei J“??? Post for order:/ W02/2008 Sd/— " """:md§e’**"‘ /o2/2008 N r w ‘ w‘ ) 1 y / sf 7 \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 8a Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. W.P. No. 3993 of 2004 The Union of India Through its Secretary, Department of Telecom, New Delhi Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, M.P. Telecom Circle, Bhopal (M.P.) General Manager Telecom, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Narendra Singh Thakur S/o. Shri Parmeshwar Singh Thakur, Resident of Awadhiyapara, Raipur, Tahsil 8s District- Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) PETITIONERS 1 RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri RM. Solapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondent. Following order of the' Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, (1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 15.3.2004 (Annexure P-l) passed'by the Central Administrative Tribunal; Jabalpur, camp at Bilaspur, in O.A. No.312/2000 whereby an application filed u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioners, herein, to consider the respondent for regularization under the “Casual Labourers . (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989”, within a period of 3 ORDER ((102.2008) r'vcera‘ 2 W.P. No. 3993 0f2004 months from the date of communication of the order dated 15.03.2004. (2) The brief facts are that the respondent herein was engaged as a casual labour in the Telecom Department since 1. 10. 1985. He worked as casual labour from 01.10.1985 to 31.1i1987 in COAXIAL Cable . Project, Raipur and from 01.2.1987 to 1.12.1987 he was engaged as casual labour in DTO, Rajnandgaon and fro 04.12.1987 to 12.2.1990 he was engaged as a Chowkidar on daily wages in C.T.O., Raipur. Thereafter, the services of the respodent was discontinued by order dated 12.2.1990, issued by the Superintendent In Charge, C.T.O., Raipur. The respondent filed the Original Application on 03.2.2000 challenging the aforesaid action of the petitioners praying his reinstatement as casual temporary Mazdoor and to pay him the arrears of salary with a further direction to he t petitioners to give all the consequential befits etc. (3) The petitioners herein filed their reply to the above Original Application filed y the respondent. They contended b that in fact the respondent was retrenched w.e.f. 01.2.1990 Vide order *No.E-64/Short/Duty/98-90/5059 dated 12.2.1990 (Annexure R—l) and as per the said order one month’s salary was to be given in ieu of one month’s notice as per the provisions of l Clause (a) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The respondent did not turn up, therefore, one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice could not be paid to him. They specifically contended that in View of section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the O.A. filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation. The respondent m n en - \ 3 ‘\ gé g W.P. No. 3993 of2004 ”Q had approached the tribunal after about 10 years, therefore, the O.A. was not entertainable. The learned Tribunal, though recorded the objections (4) regarding limitation and jurisdiction raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in its order dated 15.3.2004, but those objections were not decided and ultimately it suo motu took notice of the Scheme, issued by the petitioners for regularization of the Casual Labourers, and passed the directions and disposed of the original application in terms of the order referred to above. Shri R.M. Solapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners (5) would submit that in fact the order passed by the authority was an order of retrenchment and if any grievance was there with the respondent, he should have approached an appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. He referred to Section 2A of the said Act’ He secondly argued that the original application filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation as it was flled after 10 years of the alleged cause of action, therefore, it should have been out—rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. He further argued that the Tribunal without going into the. provisions of the Scheme issued a direction for considering the respondent for regularization under the said Scheme, whereas the fact in issue was the reinstatement of the respondent and if the respondent would not have succeeded in s reinstatement, question of his regularization does not arise, therefore, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (6) opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Tribunal. ? 4 W.P. No. 3993 0f2004 (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Tribunal. (8) In fact, there is no dispute about the status of the respondent on the date of passing of the order dated 12.2. 1990’ Admittedly the respondent was working as a casual labour and while working as a casual labour he was discontinued by order dated 12.2.1990 issued by the Superntendent In Charge, i C.T.O., Raipur. The respondent did nt make any effort to challenge this order before any forum and ultimately on 03.2.2000 he filed the bve original application before the ao C.A.., Jabalpur Bench, Section 2 of the Administrative T 1 Tribunals act 1985 deals with limitatio for filing an application n befor the ribunal u/ 19. It reads s under: e T s a 21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an applicaton,- (a) i a caseiwhere a final order such as is mentioned in clase (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been mde in connection with th grievance unless the application is made, witin one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b of sub-section (2) of section 20 has ben made and a eriod of six months had expired thereafter without such final order havin been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said perid of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the .date on which the \ jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal a \ o “ i n u a e h ) e p g o 5 W.P. No. 3993 of2004 becomes exercisable under this Act in raspect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or Within a period of six months from the said date, Whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub—section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application Within such period.” (9) A bare perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid section would show that in the first instance, final orders as are mentioned in Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 2O are to be challenged within one year from the date of passing of such order and in case where the appeal or representation etc., has been preferred against the order and the period of six months has expired thereafter, without such final orders having been made, then, theiapplication has to be made within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. Sub-section (2) deals with the period of limitation in other situations and ultimately by sub-section (3) it has been provided that the a applications may be admitted for hearing even after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making application within such period. This clearly shows that in the first instance, the application must be filed in time and if the time for filing the 6 W.P. No. 3993 of2004 application has expired, the delay has to be explained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that due to sufficient cause, he could not file the application in time. (10) In the present case, admittedly, after 12.2.1990 the respondent did not make any effort for his reinstatement and ultimately on 32.2000, that is almost after about lO years, the Original Application was tiled and no satisfactory explanation was sought by the applicant/respondent. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent was barred by limitation and in view of the provisions of Section 21, the Tribunal would not have admitted the O.A. for hearing and the O.A. was liable to be _ dismissed on the ground of delay and we hold it accordingly. (11) Since we are holding that the O.A. itself was liable to be dismissed on account of inordinate delay without any explanation, we do not feel it necessary to enter into the controversy of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in View of Section 2A and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as also the applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme in case of reinstatement and regularization of the respondent, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners. (12) In the result, the petition is allowed The impugned order dated 15.3.2004 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3l2/2000 is hereby quashed. The O.A.No.3l2/2000 stands dismissed being barred by limitation. (13) No order as to costs. 7 Sunil Kumar Sinha W/ . Judge Sd/— Sdl— /Rao/ i l