IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1279 OF 2004 (M/S) Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited ……….Petitioner. Versus Sri Sureshanand and others. ………………… Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 50 OF 2004 (M/S) Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited……………Petitioner. Versus Regional Consolidation Officer/Dy. Labour Commissioner and others. ………………….Respondents. Mr. Vinay Kumar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 to 4. 25th July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of Writ Petition No. 1279 of 2004, the petitioner/Employer has challenged the Order dated 24.9.2004 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Garhwal Region, Dehradun. 2. By means of Writ Petition No. 50 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.12.2003 (Contained as Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttaranchal, 298, Himgiri Vihar Ajabpur Khurd, Dehradun, whereby the Delay Condonation Application of the workman has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the workman raised an Industrial Dispute, which was registered as C.P. Case No. 19 of 1996 Shri Sureshanand Vs. Executive Engineer along with an application for condonation of delay before the Regional Conciliation Officer/Deputy Labour Commissioner. The petitioner filed objection before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Garhwal Region, Dehradun denying the right of the petitioner to file the same and stating that the application is time barred. Further, a written submission was filed by the petitioner before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Garhwal Regional, Dehradun. Further, the petitioner filed a show cause notice indicating that it never allotted any accommodation to the workman and the delay in raising the dispute is approximately seven years. It was also informed that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and Sri Sureshanand (workman), therefore, he is not entitled to pray for condonation of delay. On the application the date of hearing was fixed on 3.3.2003. The notice was also sent to the petitioner for hearing on the question of delay of five years and 4 months. Thereafter, on 3.3.2003, petitioner filed an objection before the Labour Commissioner, Uttaranchal, 46 E.C. Road Dehradun sating that the delay condonation is not maintainable. Thereafter, on 20.3.2003, the petitioner filed a reply to the objection of the petitioner. Further the petitioner filed a written argument in the aforesaid case on 23.5.2003. 4. After taking into account the pleadings of the parties, the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun on 26.12.2003 condoned the delay and directed the case to be registered. Thereafter, the writ Petition No. 50 of 2004 has been filed. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the reference was made by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Garhwal Region, Dehradun on 24.9.2004 and against the said reference, the petitioner has come in Writ Petition No. 1279 of 2004. 6. Perused the orders passed by the court below as well as documents available on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no merit in the writ petition. The delay had rightly been condoned by the Additional Labour Commissioner and the reference dated 24.9.2004 has rightly been made. 7. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.7.2008 Rathour