1 WP 1492/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1492/2011 Padmabai Prataprao Shinde, Age : 59 years, Occu. Household, R/o Plot No. 88, Shivaji Nagar, Kedgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioner. Versus The Deputy Director, District Animal Husbandry Department, Near Ganja Depot, Old. S.T. Stand, Ahmednagar. ..Respondent. Mr. Parag Vijay Barde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Sheke, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 7th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. The facts leading to this litigation are as under. In 1972 the petitioner started working with the respondent as daily wage worker. She continued to work in that capacity till 31/05/1981. From 01/06/1981 however, the respondent did not give her any work on daily wages. The petitioner in the year 2000, filed a complaint under MRTU and PULP Act and raised her grievance that she was refused work. The complaint was dismissed because it was barred by limitation. The petitioner thereafter, on 19/01/2004 raised industrial dispute by issuing a demand notice to the respondent, when she took the matter before the Labour Commissioner, for conciliation. 2 WP 1492/2011 At the behest of the Labour Commissioner, State Government sent reference of this dispute to the Labour Court, in July, 2004. The Labour Court then issued notice to the parties and tried the case. Ultimately on 02/07/2010 the learned judge of the Labour Court allowed the reference by granting reinstatement of the petitioner but he refused to award back wages to her. This petition challenges only a part of the impugned order which refused her grant of part wages. The respondent filed an affidavit to oppose this petition, but it is found that they simply reiterated that the impugned order is correct. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Deepak Sadashiv Shriknade & Others reported in 2010(6) Bom. C.R. 152. The facts and situation of the reported case are almost similar to this case. In the reported case, the employee rather belatedly raised a industrial dispute and secured a reference. It was contended before the Court that since the reference was sought rather belatedly, there could not have been demand and grant of back wages. 2. The learned judge did not accept this argument, in view of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, AIR 2007 S.C. 3012. In the said judgment, Supreme Court observed that in case there is delay in approaching the Court, the reference cannot be invalidated on the ground of delay but the Tribunal of Labour Court could mold the relief. The Supreme Court further observed that if the employee has grievance that workman has raised stale claim, it is open for the employer to challenge the reference by filing written statement. In 3 WP 1492/2011 view of the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment, the learned single judge of this Court, in the above mentioned case, rejected the argument referred to above and awarded back wages from the date on which workman belatedly raised a industrial dispute. Even in this case, there is inordinate delay on the part of the workman in taking her case to the authority. Her claim is delayed by about 23 years. As said above, she raised industrial dispute for the first time on 19/01/2004 by approaching the Labour Commissioner in conciliation proceeding. This, in my view, would be the starting point of the reference, in this case. It is pertinent to note that thereafter, on account of the respondent’s lethargy only the case lingered on in the Courts below till the impugned order dated 02/07/2010. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to back wages at least from 19/04/2004. The petition should accordingly succeed. ORDER The petition is allowed. The respondent shall pay back wages to the petitioner from 19/01/2004 and shall also pay cost of this petition. Rule accordingly made absolute. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/July7/wp1492.11/ok