IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 130 of 2011 Sunder S/o Sri Phool Singh through Sri H.S. Johri, R/o A-50, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar. ..……….… Appellant Versus 1. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Hardwar. 2. Irrigation Research Institute, Division H-2, Roorkee, Hardwar through its Research Officer. 3. Irrigation Research Institute, Division H-3, Roorkee, Hardwar through its Research Officer. ……...… Respondents Present: Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date: 29th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) (Delay Condonation Application No. 6517 of 2011) Considering the sufficiency of the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. (Special Appeal No. 130 of 2011 1. On 22nd January, 2005, it is claimed that the appellant approached the Conciliation Officer contending that after 4th June, 1992 he was orally refused to do any work and, accordingly, an industrial dispute has arisen. He made a similar application on 20th September, 1999. Copy of this application dated 20th September, 1999 is not on record. However, according to the own showing of 2 the appellant, the said application was rejected on 24th February, 2000. The application dated 22nd January, 2005 was considered by the Conciliation Officer after notice to the employer. The Conciliation Officer ultimately, by the order impugned in the writ petition, refused to enter into conciliation proceedings. In the writ petition, the prayer was to compel the Conciliation Officer to enter into conciliation proceedings. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant approached the Conciliation Officer after 16 years and since the Conciliation Officer expressed subjective satisfaction that the matter can not be gone in that belatedly, the same requires no interference. In the appeal, appellant is contending that in the matter of sorting out labour disputes, Limitation Act does not apply. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit versus U.P. State Electricity Board and others, reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2562. In that case, the Court considered the words “at any time” used in Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held in that view of the matter the government could refer an industrial dispute even after a considerable delay. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another, reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82, where also reference of industrial dispute was made to Labour Court. None of those judgments deal with the situation, where Conciliation Officer was approached by the workman 16 years after his alleged unauthorized retrenchment. The matter was permitted to become stale by the appellant himself. A Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lend its hand to a litigant who has permitted his claim to become stale. Furthermore the second approach to the Conciliation 3 Officer was not permissible in view of refusal to accede to the first approach. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. 3. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.07.2011 29.07.2011 P. Singh