PARESH LABHSHANKER JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.14/1/1999 passed by the Conciliation Officer of the respondent No.1 - Union of India denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the dispute has been raised almost after 15 years without giving any cogent reason for raising the same so belatedly and hence no Industrial Dispute subsists.

(2.) As per the say of the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Khalasi with the respondent No.2 in Railway since 1981 and after about 1.1/2 years his service was orally terminated. After termination of the service of the petitioner, in 1987, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the issue of termination of services of the labourers who put longer services and pursuant to the judgement of the Apex Court, the Railway Board issued a Circular to all the Divisional Heads. The petitioner came to know that juniors to the petitioners have been employed by the respondent without reinstating the petitioner and therefore, he made representations to the concerned authority. Though all the representations of the petitioner received by the Union, no action was taken and therefore, the petitioner had preferred an Original Application NO.751 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was initially admitted, but ultimately taken a view that the CAT has no jurisdiction to entertain the cases where provisions of ID Act are involved and accordingly the CAT disposed of the Original Application directing the petitioner to continue with the conciliation proceeding before the conciliation officer. Therefore, the petitioner raised a demand under the provisions of the ID Act on 16/9/1997 through the union. The conciliation officer submitted failure report on the ground of inordinate delay as aforesaid.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the respondent No.1 has no authority to decide and adjudicate the dispute and the dispute cannot be rejected on the ground of delay as per the settled law and hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The dispute is required to be referred for adjudication.