Civil Writ Petition No. 573 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 573 of 1991 Date of decision:- 20.04.2011 M/s. Hyderabad Industries Ltd. And another ....Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 8. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 17.10.1990 (Annexure P-1), vide which the official respondents had made a reference under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel for respondents has averred that Annexure P-1 is quite valid and the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to decide the reference. Question of limitation was to be gone into by the Labour Court. The plea of the petitioners is that they were not intimated about making of the reference. Civil Writ Petition No. 573 of 1991 2 None has appeared on behalf of petitioners. Arguments on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 heard. The respondents have set up a categorical plea in their written statement. The relevant part of the written statement of respondent No.2 is reproduced as under:- “2. .....it is submitted that disputes of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were rejected by the answering respondents vide order dated 27.12.1972. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 submitted their joint representation which was also rejected by the appropriate Govt. vide order dated 16.03.1973. However, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 submitted an appeal against the rejection order passed by the answering respondent on 05.11.1988 and the same was also rejected. Again on 12.09.1990 an appeal was also submitted by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to the appropriate Govt. for reviewing its earlier decision. The appropriate Govt. after going through the facts and circumstances of the case given in the appeal, decided to refer their cases to the Labour Court for adjudication. In this regard orders were passed for referring their cases to the Labour Court on 17.11.1990. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the appropriate Govt. after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the cases reconsidered its earlier decision and rightly referred the case of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 for adjudication. It is also submitted that it is not absolutely necessary that there must be some fresh material before the Govt. to review its decision taken earlier and this has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case Avon Services (production) Agency (P) Ltd; V/s Industrial Tribunal, Haryana reported in 1979 (I) LLJ (page 1) SC. The Hon'ble Court has not in any way barred the jurisdicton of appropriate Govt. to review its earlier decision. So far as question of about 19 years delay is concerned, it is submitted that no limitation is prescribed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and this Hon'ble Court in various judgments such as in C.W.P. No. 13201/90 and 2787 of 1991 held that the question of delay is for the appropriate Tribunal to take into consideration while Civil Writ Petition No. 573 of 1991 3 adjudicating the dispute and not for the State Govt. for declining the dispute. Hence the action of the appropriate Govt. in referring the cases of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to theLabour Court for adjudication is quite legal, valid and according to law which is likely to be upheld by this Hon'ble Court.” The counsel for the petitioners has not turned up to rebut the contentions and to challenge the vires of the order Annexure P-1. No merit. Dismissed (A.N.JINDAL) 20th of April, 2011 JUDGE ajp