IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. NO. 17747 of 2002. Date of Decision : March 02, 2009. Balkrishan. ...... Petitioner. Versus. The State of Haryana and others. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-P-8) and the order dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure-P-14), passed by the respondent No. 1, vide which the reference as claimed by the petitioner-workman on his demand notice dated 17.08.1984 has been declined. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-workman was appointed as a daily wage worker on 01.10.1980. He was terminated by respondent No. 3 on 01.01.1982 without assigning any reason or complying with the provisions as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. He raised a dispute by submitting demand notice dated 17.08.1984. No decision was conveyed to the petitioner-workman on the said demand notice. The matter C.W.P. NO. 17747 OF 2002. was taken up by the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Yamunanagar. The conciliation proceedings failed and a failure report was forwarded to the appropriate Government for taking decision thereon. The said demand notice was rejected by respondent No. 1, but no information was conveyed rejecting the reference on the said demand notice dated 15.03.1993. Similarly placed employees namely, Krishan Chand, Suresh Kumar, Om Parkash, and another Suresh Kumar also preferred demand notices. In those cases also, no information was forwarded. The petitioner-workman came to know that his demand notice has been rejected and therefore, preferred an appeal dated 08.07.1992. On consideration of this matter and other similarly placed employees, the Government made reference No. 5,6,7, and 8 of 1992 to the Labour Court for adjudication but no reference was made with regard to the demand notice submitted by the petitioner- workman. The petitioner-workman further persuaded his matter before the appropriate Government and ultimately an order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-P-8) was conveyed to the petitioner-workman wherein it was mentioned that the matter was examined and after consideration, no relevant facts were found to change the prior decision taken by the appropriate Government and therefore, his appeal was declined. Thereafter, a review application was preferred by the workman on 01.06.1999 which again was considered by the appropriate Government and the Government after examination of the said application, came to the conclusion that due to not finding the relevant record or considerable facts there was no need to change the prior decision taken by the Government. This decision dated 10.01.2002 was conveyed to the workman on 23.01.2002. On the basis of these facts, counsel for the -2- C.W.P. NO. 17747 OF 2002. petitioner contends that in the case of similarly placed employees, reference whereof was sent to the Labour Court, awards in their favour passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, in the year, 1999, whereas in the case of the petitioner-workman due to non reference being made to the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman has been deprived of his right for adjudication of the dispute. He, therefore, contends that a direction be issued to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State contends that the demand notice dated 17.08.1984 was considered by the appropriate Government and the same stood rejected, vide letter dated 16.10.1984 which fact has been admitted by the petitioner-workman in his writ petition as well as his subsequent appeal and the review application preferred by him. He contends that the cause of action arose to the petitioner-workman to approach this Court initially when his demand notice for reference was rejected by the appropriate Government on 16.10.1984 and even if the submissions as made by the petitioner that the same was not communicated to him, is accepted, the cause of action arose to him when order dated 18.12.1998 rejecting his appeal was conveyed to the petitioner-workman. Since, he has preferred the review application dated 01.06.1999, the same was also rejected on 23.01.2001 as by that time the records have been weeded out as it was a sole claim and there existed no industrial dispute which would fall within the purview of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, requiring the reference to Labour Court for adjudication which has been contended by counsel for the respondent that it is not a case where the petitioner-workman was not aware of the fate of his demand -3- C.W.P. NO. 17747 OF 2002. notice but is a case where the petitioner-workman, if he was so aggrieved, would have approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. Having failed to do so, the dispute, if any, which arose in the year, 1982, when his services were terminated on 01.01.1982, cannot at this belated stage after 20 years when he preferred the present writ petition, be said to be still alive and is now a stale dispute, if any. Upon going through the records of the case and having heard the submissions put forth by counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no dispute survives in the present case. The cause of action arose firstly when he came to know of the decision dated 16.10.1984 of the Government rejecting reference on his demand notice. Instead of approaching this Court, the petitioner-workman preferred an appeal before the Government on 08.07.1992 which was delayed by almost 8 years. A decision on that appeal rejecting the same was conveyed to the petitioner- workman on 18.12.1998 which admittedly the petitioner-workman received. The petitioner-workman could even then have approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. Instead he preferred a review petition dated 01.06.1999, leading to the reiteration by the Government to its earlier stand, vide communication dated 23.01.2002. It would not be out of way to mention here that neither any appeal nor review is provided under the Statute against the order passed by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The delay, therefore, from the initial order of rejection of his demand notice is 18 years. Thereafter, the subsequent order rejecting his appeal is dated 18.12.1998 i.e. the challenge is delayed by 4 years. All this goes to show that by the time the petitioner- workman has approached this Court, there existed no dispute. The decision -4- C.W.P. NO. 17747 OF 2002. as conveyed by the Government which has been challenged by the petitioner-workman cannot, therefore, by any stretch of imagination be termed as not in consonance with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Versus K.P. Madhavankutty and others, 2002 (2) S.C.C. 455, has held that although the law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but this power cannot be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which have already been settled. The power of reference is to be exercised reasonably and in a rationale manner. Hon'ble the Supreme Court further proceeded to hold that there was no rationale basis on which the Government had exercised its powers after a elapse of seven years of order dismissing the petitioner-workman from service was passed. Similarly, in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Babu Ram, 2006 (5) S.C.C. 433, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had held that delay cannot be condoned merely on conjunctures and surmises. In this view of the matter, in the present case, as there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner-workman who has approached this Court and if taken from the date of termination, a period of 18 years had elapsed when he first approach this Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that after a elapse of such a long period, no industrial dispute exists or can be said to have been apprehended which would persuade this Court to direct the respondent Government to re-consider the matter or refer the dispute to the Labour Court. -5- C.W.P. NO. 17747 OF 2002. Finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner- workman in the present writ petition for the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 02,2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes. -6-