DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER Vs. B M MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 06th July, 2007 passed by the Labour Court, Himatnagar in Reference (LCH) No.112 of 2000, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to treat the respondent-workman to be retired as on 30 th October, 1997 as if in service, without any back wages and directed to give him all retiral benefits.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner had terminated his services in complete breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was numbered as Reference (LCH) No.112 of 2000 and it was decided by way of the impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) IN support of her contention regarding delay in filing the Reference, Ms.Avani Mehta has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91, whereby the Apex Court has held that High Court could have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay or could have otherwise refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The conduct of the respondent in approaching the Labour Court after a period of more than seven years had been considered to be a relevant factor by the Labour Court for refusing to grant relief to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent-workman has not been able to point out any other decision controverting the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay.