DBSAW NO.781/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.781/2007. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6254/2005. Harish Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Date of order:- July 16, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj for the appellant. Mr. B.L. Awasthi, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 11/10/2006 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant in the writ petition had challenged the order passed by the appropriate government on 28/6/2004 whereby the appropriate government upon consideration of the failure report, refused to make a reference to the industrial tribunal/labour court on the premise that the dispute pertains to the alleged retrenchment of the appellant made on 24/11/1979 whereas appellant approached the Conciliation Officer belatedly in 2003. There was thus delay of 23 years and there was no explanation of such enormous delay. The appropriate government therefore held that the industrial dispute cannot be said to exist after such a long delay. DBSAW NO.781/07. 2 3) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that services of the appellant have wrongly been terminated. Neither retrenchment compensation was paid to him nor any pay in lieu of the notice was paid to him. Principle of last go and first come was not followed and it was therefore very necessary for the appropriate government to make reference to the labour court/industrial tribunal. 4) The law in regard to power of the appropriate government for making a reference as per provisions of Section 10(1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is well settled. The appropriate government can refuse to make a reference if the concerned workman raises the dispute after enormous delay. In the present case, appellant himself approached the Conciliation Officer in the year 2003. Reason for refusing to make reference cannot be said to be extraneous or otherwise irrelevant. 5) We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which calls for no interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil