CWP No. 9621 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9621 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 Smt. Lillo s/o Mangal Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Government of India and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition has been posed to the order dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure P-11), vide which the reference made by the petitioner for her illegal termination was declined by the appropriate authority as the dispute against termination was raised by the petitioner after a period of more than six years from the date of her termination. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no time fixed for raising such a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the appropriate authority was not justified in rejecting the demand notice of the worklady merely because the same was submitted after a period of six years. CWP No. 9621 of 2010 2 I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay in submitting the said demand notice. What has been pleaded is that certain representations were made, which were not considered by the respondents. The same cannot be taken as a ground for explanation for the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others, 2000 (2) S.C.C. 455 in para-6 has held as follows:- “6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the CWP No. 9621 of 2010 3 respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.” In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the observations made therein, the impugned order dated 30.08.2006 (Annexure P-11) cannot be faulted with. In any case, there is a delay of 3 years 9 months in approaching this Court for quashing of the impugned order as the said order was passed on 30.08.2006 (Annexure P-11). The only explanation with regard to this delay is that the petitioner had earlier sent a legal notice dated 29.09.2009, to which the response was received on 27.10.2009, Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively. This would not be termed as satisfactory explanation for explaining the delay in approaching this Court as well. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 24, 2010 pj