A G CHANDRAPPAGOL Vs. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GHATAPRABHA RIGHT BANK CANAL CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION 1 BENGAUM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT claims that he was appointed as heavy Mazdoor on daily wage basis in november 1980 and worked continuously till his services were illegally terminated on 15/02/1983 without complying with provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short ). He filed an application dated 14/02/1996 before the Labour Officer, Belgaum Division, to take up the matter in conciliation and failing settlement to take steps to refer the matter for adjudication. In pursuance of it, the State government, by order dated 4/05/1998 referred the dispute as to the validity of the alleged termination, to the Labour Court, Hubli under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Act. By award dated 5/01/1999, the Labour Court rejected the reference on the ground that appellant had sought reference after 13 years and the delay was not explained. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed W. P. No. 23187 of 2002. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition by order dated June 19, 2002 on the ground that the conclusion reached by the labour Court could not be faulted.

(2.) RELYING on certain observations of the supreme Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. Uttar pradesh State Electricity Board and Others air 2001 SC 2562 : 2001 (6) SCC 222 : 2001-II-LLJ- 788 and Division Bench of calcutta High Court in B. R. Herman and mohata (India) (Private) Limited v. Seventh industrial Tribunal, West Bengal 1977 LIC (NOC) 13 (Cal-DB), the learned counsel for the appellant contended that when once a dispute is referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Act, the Labour Court cannot reject the reference on the ground of delay. He submitted that the Act does not prescribe any limitation for making a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act; and when a reference is made, there is a presumption that in the opinion of the appropriate Government making the reference, such a dispute exists or is apprehended. In sapan Kumar Pandit's case, the services of respondent were terminated on 17/07/1975. The State Government referred the dispute to labour Court by an order dated 29/03/1993. The reference was challenged by the appellant by a writ petition. The Allahabad high Court quashed the reference on the ground that there was a delay of 15 years on the part of the respondent in approaching the conciliation officer by raising a dispute. The decision was reversed by the Supreme Court on facts accepting the detailed reasons given by the respondent explaining the delay. The Supreme court observed 2001-II-LLJ-788 at p. 791:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision in Sapan Kumar pandit's case (supra) was rendered in regard to a challenge to a reference made by the State government, by the employer in a writ proceedings on the ground of delay. He pointed out that the said decision did not consider the jurisdiction and power of Labour Court to decide whether the claim existed or had become stale by the time the dispute was raised. He also referred to the following observations in western India Match Company Limited v. Western India Match Company Workers' union and Others AIR 1970 SC 1205 : 1970 (1) SCC 225 : 1970-II-LLJ-256 at pp. 262 and 264 of LLJ: