R D TURI 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.16/3/1999 passed by the respondent No.1 denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 10 years without any justification for the long delay and hence frivolous and stale.

(2.) As per the say of the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Extra Departmental Agent in the office of the respondent No.3 since last 10 years. In the year 1985, the petitioner was chargesheeted for minor offence such as teared stationary, broken seals at Postal Bags etc. However, the petitioner was served with the chargesheet for a major penalty and removed from service after predetermined and prejudicial inquiry on 25/11/1988, without serving order upon the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a departmental appeal, wherein the Superintendent of Police - respondent NO.3 rejected the appeal vide order dtd.20/2/1989, but the petitioner was not informed accordingly. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the respondents including the respondent No.3. The petitioner made representations almost thrice in a year. The petitioner made last representation in September 1997 to various authorities. Pursuant to which, the Secretary vide letter dtd.15/9/1997 informed the petitioner that the representation made to the respondent No.3 is under the control of the Central Government and forwarded to the Central Government. Thereafter also, the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities, but the same have not been replied. The petitioner being poor person, coming from the lower strata of the society i.e. Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner filed a dispute against his illegal termination before the respondent No.1 on 2/9/1998, but the conciliation officer submitted failure report on 10/2/1999 and therefore, the respondent No.1 declined to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal vide order dtd.16/3/1999 on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 10 years without any justifiable reasons for the long delay and hence frivolous and stale.

(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.