SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 9th January, 2007 passed by the Ministry of labour/shram Mantralaya, Government of India by virtue of which the respondent no. 1 has observed that prima facie the ministry does not consider this a dispute fit for adjudication to be referred to the industrial tribunal on the ground that the request of compassionate appointment was duly considered by the respondent/bank and in order to tide over the financial condition of the family, a lump sum financial relief of Rs. 5,75,000/- was offered to the family of the deceased employee as per the policy of the respondent/bank which was not accepted by the family. It was further observed in the said order that the compassionate appointment is granted a welfare measure and cannot be said to be conferring a vested right in the dependency of the deceased employee and therefore, the dispute raised was found to be not maintainable.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the question as to whether the petitioner no. 2 is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground or not is a matter to be considered by the Industrial adjudicator and it cannot be preempted by respondent no. 1 by refusing to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication.

(3.) THE objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent was regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay in assailing the order dated 9th january, 2007 was sought to be answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance in case titled Ajaib singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing service Society Limited and Anr. (1999) 6 SCC 82, wherein the apex Court in the facts of that case had held that even the seven years long delay in seeking a reference of a dispute regarding termination of services could not be a ground for refusing to refer the dispute for the purpose of industrial adjudication. Reliance in this regard was also sought to be placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 384/2008 in case titled DDA vs. Sudesh Kumar and Anr. It was also observed that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes a three years period of limitation is not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Before dealing with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to give the brief facts of the case.