'''ln.l'.l "3S. ijinuiii. otfs.i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.2-42-QF 2005. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^y^--^ ^sy. ^••••"\"v .^. Rewa Ram Banjare, S/o JhagruRam, aged 40 years R/0 Village : Akolikala, P. O. Chhatara, P.S. Aarang, Tahsil & District : Aarang, Raipur(CG). Union of India, through the Secretary.Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi. The Divisional Engineer, Bharat SancAorNigam Ltd, Telecom Project, Sahakari Marg, II, Choubey Colony, Raipur(CG). Th& Assrstant Engineer, Bharat SanOwrNigam Ltd, Telecom Project, 7,Sahakari Marg, II, Choubeycolony, Raipur(CG). WRLT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Writ Petition No. 242of2005 PETITIONER Rewa Ram Banjare Versus B:: ^ RESPONDENTS Union of India & others. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh. counsel for the petitioner. Mr.KashifShakeel,CQunselforFespondentNo.1. Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, counsel for respondents N0.2&3. WRITPETITION UNDERARTieLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (26.08.2009) With theconsent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitionerwasan employee of Bharat SancharNigam Limited and working at Raipur from 16.4.1985. He was removed from service vide orderdated 31.12.1990 passed by Divisional Engineer. , Contention of counsel for the petitioner is thatpetitioner has completed 240 days inservice and as such, he is entitled to protection under the Industrial Law. According to the petitioner, he filedan original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal i.e. (O.A.No. 921/1996) along with other employees which was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes which are covered under the Industria! Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter the petitioner raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the report was submitted by the said authority on 10.3.2004. Based onthisreporton 5.11.2004, theimpugnedorderhasbeen passed by the Governmentof India in the following terms:- ^ .-NM::: ^ Q/ "I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No.RP-9)3)/2003 dated 10/03/2004 from the ALC (Raipur) received in this Ministry on 22/03/2004 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the followingreasons: "The dispute has been raised atter a periocf of nearty 13 years without any jusffication forthe long delay." Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authorjty concemed has ignored the fact that the petitioner was pursufng his remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore merely on the ground OT delay the order could not have been passed. The above factual position is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents. It is well settled principle of law that the proyisions of Article 137 ofthe Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Dlsputes Act. In the case of Ajaib Slnvh v. Slrhlnti Coooerative MarkeGnti-Cum-Processtna Servfce Socletv Llmlted and anoffier reported in (19991 6 SC 82 the Supreme Court in para lOobservedthus:- " 10...... the provisions of Articte 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merelyon the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved asa matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and ^not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference tothe Labour Court can be generally questionedon the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or Board, dealing with the*case can appropriately npoutd the B^niTmqflll l| 11 liil(!ii»ufiiiua»«ni ^: relief by declinjng to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termlnation or dismissal. The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages ....." This dictum wasfollowd subsequently in the case of Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. Coilege of Education and others." With the eonsent ofthe parties, this petition is accordingly allowed. The order impugned dated 5.11 .2004 passed by Union of India is set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to referthe disputewithin a period oftwo months to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur for adjudication from the date of receiptofcopyofthisorder. ^ ,^—. d/- Sd/- Pritsnker Diwaker Judge J^