PRABHAKAR Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) We may state at the outset that the main factor with which the High Court has been influenced is that the Petitioner, whose services were terminated on April 01, 1985, raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1999, i.e. after a period of more than fourteen years. On the facts of this case, the High Court has held that there was no 'live' dispute and even when no period of limitation is provided for raising the disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable, there could not have been a reference at such a belated stage, inasmuch as, after a lapse of such abnormal time, the dispute ceases to exist and, therefore, the appropriate Government had no jurisdiction or power to make a reference of a non-existent dispute. The Petitioner has questioned the appropriateness of this view taken by the High Court.

(3.) Primary submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that once it is accepted that the law of limitation does not apply, the Government could make the reference even if the dispute was raised belatedly and in such circumstances power of the Labour Court is to mould the relief. In support of this contention, learned Counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 10 SCC 301. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we scan through the basic facts of the present case.