SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner herein is a registered trade union, which seeks to espouse the cause of one of its workmen. The facts and dates relevant to the present controversy are not in dispute. The workman was engaged as a casual labourer by the employer on 1st January 1986, and as per the assertions of the workman, he was terminated with effected from 31st August 1988. Thereafter the workman remained silent and complacent until 15th April 1998 when he first filed a complaint to the Conciliation Officer. The Failure Report dated 29th June 1998 was filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Adipur-Kutch), which was received by the relevant Ministry on 7th July 1998. By an order passed by a concerned officer under the provisions of section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it was found that the Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for making a reference. It is pertinent to note that this order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition is not an order on merits of the dispute, and does not refuse to make a reference on any grounds material to or arising from the dispute, but the same has been refused only on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 10 years without justifiable reason for the long delay.

(3.) It is also pertinent to note on the factual aspects of the matter that this delay of 10 years is firstly admitted. Secondly, this is a delay between the date of alleged termination and the first complaint filed by the workman before the Conciliation Officer in this regard. However, the most significant factor is that no justification whatsoever has been given or even attempted to be given by the workman for this delay. This justification is not even attempted either before the Conciliation Officer or even in the present petition.