THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20019 of 2010 %06.10.2010 #M/s.Andhra Printers Ltd., J.D.Towers, J.D.Nagar, Vijayawada. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS $The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab-I) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. ...RESPONDENTS < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for PETITIONER: SRI V.HARIHARAN. ^Counsel for RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3: SRI GP FOR LABOUR ^Counsel for RESPONDENT NO.4: SRI MASTANVALI SHAIK ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20019 of 2010 ORDER: The fourth respondent is employed as a Sub-Editor with petitioner. It is stated that he was the President of A.P.Working Journa Union at Hyderabad. The petitioner transferred him to Delhi in the 1997. A civil suit was filed by the fourth respondent and the same dismissed. He approached the Deputy Commissioner of La Hyderabad with a prayer to take steps for recovery of a su Rs.5,50,000/- representing his wages and attendant benefits as pro under Section 17(1) of the Working Journalists Act, 1955. The D Commissioner of Labour passed an order, dated 20.06.2003 as praye and requested the District Collector to recover that amount. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner as well a Joint Commissioner. The order, dated 20.06.2003 was recalled instead, the Deputy Commissioner addressed proceedings, 24.09.2003, to the Government for necessary action; and taking that the observations of the Joint Commissioner into account, the Govern issued G.O.Rt.No.2491, Labour Employment Training & Factories (L Department, dated 22.12.2003, referring the matter to the Labour C Guntur in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Indu Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The Labour Court registered the matter as I.D.No.15 of 2004. O ground that the fourth respondent did not submit his claim statemen Labour Court dismissed the I.D., on 07.03.2006. The fourth respondent submitted representations, dated 08.02 and 28.05.2010, to the Additional Commissioner, the second respon stating that the Advocate engaged by him died, he was not aware o fact and it is only in January, 2010, that he came to know abou dismissal of the I.D. According to him, the award was not sent to him was directed to the office of the petitioner. He made a request t second respondent herein, to make a reference. After issuing notice petitioner, the second respondent passed an order, dated 17.07. making a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hydera The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the second respondent ha jurisdiction to refer the matter, once a reference made to it end dismissal by the Labour Court. According to it, the claim of the responent is stale and it cannot be adjudicated at this length of time. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, a counter affidavit is narrating the circumstances under which the reference under the impu order came to be made. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that soo notice was issued in the I.D., he entered appearance and engage Advocate; and on account of death of his Advocate, he could not p the proceedings. He submits that he was not aware of the subse developments. He further submits that though he never worke Vijayawada or Guntur, reference was made to the Labour Court at G obviously at the instance of the petitioner. He contends that no prej would be caused to the petitioner, if reference is made and the cla adjudicated. Heard Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Government Pleader for Labour for respondent Nos.1 to 3 an Mastanvali Shaik, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. A reference in the first instance, came to be made in the light order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour directing recov Rs.5,50,000/- from the petitioner. The order of the Deputy Commiss was almost recalled and instead, a reference was made, at the instan the petitioner itself. One important aspect of the matter is that the respondent was working at Hyderabad, the registered office o petitioner is at Hyderabad and it is the order passed by the D Commissioner at Hyderabad which became the basis for m reference. However, the reference was made to a Labour Court at Gu I.D.No.15 of 2004, numbered on the basis of the reference dismissed for non-prosecution, in the year 2006. The fourth respo categorically stated that he became aware of the order only in Jan 2010. His averment that he did not receive the copy of the order rem unrebutted. It is in this background, that he made an effort to get the m referred to a Labour Court at Hyderabad. His request was acceded to, after issuing notice to the petitione Two contentions are urged by the petitioner. The first is tha claim has become stale. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Sup Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd., v. K.P.Madhavankutty[1]. The oth that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute, w was already referred. According to it, once the power under Section the Act is exercised and exhausted, it cannot be invoked once aga respect of the same dispute. It is true that the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank’s case that though there is no time limit for exercise of power under Section needs to be exercised within a reasonable period. Had the respondent approached the second respondent for the first time in re of a claim, which has become stale, consequences would have different. On his part, he was satisfied with the relief granted by the D Commissioner of Labour, through his order, dated 24.09.2003, for rec of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is at the instance of the petitioner tha reference came to be made. That, however, did not fructify, for vari reasons. It is the same claim that is sought to be referred, now. Ther the ratio laid down in the judgment does not apply to the facts of the ca Coming to the second contention, it is no doubt true that w made through the impugned order, is a re-reference, that too, to a dif Court. However, there is no prohibition in law against such a course; intention to give effect to a reference which was made earlier, but d fructify, it would certainly accord with the spirit of Section 10 of the Act petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment on account The second reference is certainly barred, if the first reference answered on merits. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent placed reliance the judgment of the Supreme Court in Virendra Bhandari v. Rajas State Road Transport Corporation and others[2]. In that case Supreme Court held that if a reference made under Section 10 of th did not result in any adjudication on merits, re-reference of the same m at a later point of time is very much permissible under Section 10 o Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order impugned here Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:06.10.2010 Note: LR Copy be marked. (b/o) VGB [1] 2000 LAB I.C. 703 [2] (2002) 9 SCC 104