THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC Vs. MALLIKARJUN GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner -corporation and Sri Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent -workman.

(2.) AWARD passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 1/2011 dated 12.06.2013 is under challenge by the Corporation in the present writ petition contending inter alia, that Labour Court had allowed the claim petition earlier by award dated 19.11.2011, same came to be challenged by the corporation in W.P. 63462/2012 contending inter alia that there was a delay of 18 years in raising the dispute and this aspect had not been delved upon by Labour Court and accepting the plea put forward by the corporation writ petition came to be allowed on 21.11.2012 by remanding the matter to the Labour Court for expeditious disposal at any rate within six months from the first date of hearing and on such order of remand being made Labour court instead of examining the issue of delay and has arrived at a conclusion that once reference is made it cannot be invalidated on the ground of delay and as such it has not considered directions issued by this court. As such without touching delay factor, Labour court has proceeded to examine the merits of claim and accordingly allowed the reference and set aside the order of dismissal passed against the workman on 24.07.92 by the corporation by impugned award. Hence it is contended by Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for corporation that direction issued by this court having not been complied impugned award is liable to be set aside.

(3.) LABOUR court instead of examining the aspect of delay has refused to examine the same on the ground that reference cannot be invalidated on the ground of delay by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board reported in : 2008 -I -LLJ 289. Perusal of the reference made by the Government which has been extracted in the impugned award would clearly indicate that Point No. 1 referred to by the appropriate Government for being adjudicated by the Labour court relates to issue of delay namely, as to whether workman is entitled to the relief sought for on account of claim having been raised 18 years after the date of his dismissal. Thus, it was incumbent upon the Labour court to examine, adjudicate and answer the said reference. It could not have abdicated of its responsibility to answer the said reference. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEDUNGADI BANK LIMITED Vs. K.P. MADHAVAN KUTTY AND OTHERS reported in : (2000) 2 SCC 455 has held that where dispute becomes stale when reference is sought for after considerable time has lapsed, such reference of said dispute will have to be held as bad on the ground it had become stale and thereby to hold non existence of a industrial dispute. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nedungadi Bank's case as under: