MAHIPATSING JORUBHA CHUDASAMA Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts and issue involved in both these writ petitions are common, therefore, they are heard together and decided analogously by this common oral order.

(2.) RULE. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of behalf of the respective respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.14355 of 2020, was employed by the respondent authority on 1/6/1998 and in Special Civil Application No.14372 of 2020, he was employed on 1/6/1992. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were illegally terminated on 31/12/1998 without following any procedure, as envisaged in Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act) which constrained them to raise an industrial dispute which culminated into the Reference (LCR) Nos. 35 and 34 of 2016, respectively. The Labour Court, after examining all the facts, has rejected both the references on the ground of delay. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioners workmen had raised the demand notice after a period of 17 years and hence, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department , 2018 (15) SCC 1 and other judgment of this Court on the issue of delay has rejected the reference.