YESH PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties .

(2.) THIS Special Appeal has been preferred under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court, 1952 (applicable to the High Court of Uttaranchal). It is directed against the order dated 05 -09 -2005, passed in Writ Petition No. 191 (M/S) of 2005, by the learned single Judge of this Court. The Writ Petition No. 191 (M/S) of 2005 was filed by the petitioner (appellant) seeking writ of the certiorari, quashing order dated 11 -02 -2005, passed by respondent No. 3 - Additional Labour Commissioner, Hardwar, and order dated 17 -01 -2002 passed by respondent No. 2 - Deputy Labour Commissioner, Hardwar. According to the petitioner (appellant), as stated in the writ' petition, he was appointed as Fitter with respondent No. 4 - Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Hardwar, vide its order dated 24 -05 -1977. Admittedly, he did riot work after 2206 -1977. It appears that after long 18 years, he moved an application, raising the industrial dispute under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was rejected by Conciliation Officer in the year 1996. Again he moved fresh application and got it sent to State Government but this time the State Government also refused to refer the dispute to Labour Court in the matter. On further application, respondent No. 2 - Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dehradun, vide his order dated 17 -01 -2002, dropped the attempted reference also on the ground that petitioner has not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and that now there exists no dispute which is required to be referred to the Labour Court. Again the petitioner (appellant) slept for more than three years and filed the Writ Petition No. 191 (MIS) of 2005. Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was un -explained delay on the part of the petitioner for more than 18 years in getting referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Aggrieved by said order, .this appeal has been preferred. .

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Section