IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1382 OF 2007 (M/S) (Old No. 22841 of 1999) Rakesh Johari ……………….Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. ………….Respondents. Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing Counsel for respondent no. 3. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel (State of U.P.) for respondents no. 1 and 2. 25 th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.9.1996, 22.10.1997, 16.6.1998 and 11.2.1999 (Annexures No. 6, 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Boiler Operator w.e.f. 20.6.1986. Thereafter, from 1.1.1994, the respondent Management prohibited the petitioner from entering into the Factory premises. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Conciliation Officer / Assistant Labour Commissioner on 28.11.1995, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 9 of 1996. The Conciliation Officer vide order dated 24.9.1996 refused to refer the dispute on the ground that the correct date of termination of service has not been shown and application for condonation of delay was not submitted alongwith the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay, but the same was dismissed Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Kshetra, Haldwani on 22.10.1997. Thereafter, on 16.6.1998, the Regional Additional Labour Commissioner passed an order holding that the case was not fit for reference and the application for condonation of delay dated 28.11.1995 has already been dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 3.7.1998 before the Additional Labour Commissioner stating therein that the concerned Officer without taking into consideration the facts of the case has dismissed the application. This application of the petitioner was also rejected by the Additional Labour Commissioner on 11.2.1999 holding that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the order dated 24.9.1996, but the same was not done by the petitioner and further the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay without following the procedure of law, therefore, there was no occasion to allow the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred M/s Jagran Prakashan (P) Ltd. Vs. The Industrial Tribunal IV and others 1991(63) FLR Page 730, where the Allahabad High Court has observed an under: “9. The second objection taken by the Tribunal for not accepting the application is that the application did not accompany a medical certificate or injury report. In my opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in taking this view in view of the fact that the affidavit filed in support of the application remained uncontroverted. In number of cases, it has been held that something on record falsifying the facts mentioned in the affidavit. The learned Tribunal has not pointed out any such material on record for not accepting the affidavit. Learned counsel for respondents has also not been able to point out any such material on which basis it could be said that affidavit filed by the petitioner should not be believed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal committed a manifest illegality in rejecting the application on the ground that medical certificate or injury report was not filed.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred Jai Pratap Singh Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 1994 S.C.D. Page 148, where the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has observed that there is no limit fixed for making reference and the application for making reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in moving the application. It has further been observed in the aforesaid judgment that the State Government has no power to refuse to make reference on the ground of administration exigencies and merits of the case. 5. Perused the record and the judgment/order passed by the court below. I am not convinced with the findings recorded by the Courts below/Conciliation Officer as the court below has not decided the case and made reference on the ground that the delay condonation application has not been filed and further the date of termination has not been correctly endorsed. Thereafter, the same has been confirmed by the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, 16.6.1998 passed by the Regional Additional Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Khetra, Haldwani and order dated 11.2.1999 passed by the Addition Labour Commissioner, Office Labour Commissioner, Kanpur. So far as the wrong date of termination of services of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner in his application (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) has stated that he was having no knowledge that the employer had terminated the service on 17.12.1994. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations as well as the case laws cited above, the impugned orders mentioned in the writ petition are quashed. The Conciliation Officer/ respondent no. 3 is directed to make a reference to the 3 Labour Court for deciding the aforesaid dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour 4