IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 4388 of 2010. Reserved on: 13.05.2011. Decided on: 25.05.2011. ____________________________________________________ Ms. Anita Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Ramesh Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was engaged as Beldar in the respondent- department in 1986. Her services were terminated on 31st March, 1990. She preferred an Original Application against her termination before the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 1104 of 1990. The Original Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 31.07.1995. Petitioner raised a demand on 06.10.2009 against her retrenchment dated 31st March, 1990, under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for convenience sake). Respondent-department filed reply to the same on 03.11.2009. The conciliation meeting was held by the Labour Officer-Cum-Conciliation Officer, Rampur Zone, Rampur on 05.11.2009. He sent the failure report to the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner refused to refer the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. matter to learned Labour Court as per Annexure RJ/1, dated 10th September, 2010. According to him, the dispute had faded away and there was no justification for making reference to the Labour Court. Petitioner has assailed Annexure RJ/1, dated 10th September, 2010. 2. Mr. Ramesh Kaundal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the Labour Commissioner to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court. He relied upon the award dated 28.02.2009, passed in favour of one workman, namely, Nisha Sharma. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the issuance of Annexure RJ/1, dated 10th September, 2010. According to him, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the Industrial Dispute after a period of 18 years of her retrenchment, i.e., 31st March, 1990. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was retrenched on 31st March, 1990. In sequel to the interim order passed in O.A. No. 1104 of 1990 on 20.09.1990, she was permitted to join her duties on 26.09.1990. Thereafter, she remained absent as per the reply filed by the respondents and was re-engaged on 01.11.1990. Thereafter, she remained un-authorizedly absent w.e.f. 01.02.1991. The Assistant Engineer, Rampur Sub-Divn. No. II has issued two letters to the petitioner on 21.02.1991 and 07.03.1991 to resume her duties. The Executive Engineer, Rampur Division (B&R) also sent two communications to the petitioner on 06.03.1991 and 19.04.1991 to resume her duties. The Assistant Engineer, Rampur Sub-Divn. No. II again wrote to her on 09.04.1991 to resume her duties. However, fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not joined her duties despite letters issued by the Executive Engineer, Rampur Division (B&R) and Assistant Engineer, Rampur Sub- Divn. No. II. Petitioner has raised demand on 06.10.2009. The reply was filed to the same by the Executive Engineer, Rampur Division (B&R) on 03.11.2009. The conciliation proceedings had failed, which led to the filing of failure report by the Labour Officer-Cum-Conciliation Officer, Rampur Bushehar to the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner on the basis of failure report and after applying its independent mind, came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was stale. Petitioner was supposed to raise the Industrial Dispute within a reasonable period after her retrenchment/termination w.e.f. 31st March, 1990. She has remained silent for a period of more than 18 years. 6. Now, as far as the case of Nisha Sharma is concerned, the Reference bearing No. 108 of 2003 was instituted on 24.04.2003, which has been answered in her favour on 28.02.2009. It is only after the award made in favour of Nisha Sharma that the petitioner has raised the demand on 06.10.2009. She has not explained the inordinate delay in raising the demand for almost 18 years. The dispute is required to be raised within a reasonable period and if there is delay, the same is required to be explained satisfactorily. Consequently, there is no illegality in the order dated 10th September, 2010 (Annexure-RJ/1), passed by the Labour Commissioner, whereby he has refused to refer the claim to the learned Labour Court. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in Liaq Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. C.W.P. No. 1486 of 2007, decided on 6th January, 2011 has held that the industrial dispute must be raised within a reasonable period. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge May 25, 2011. (bhupender) `