HEMENDRA M MANKAD Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER K.S. Jhaveri, J: - 1.0 The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21.1.2003 passed by respondent no.1 herein, whereby the authority has declined to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court.

(2.) 0 The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as a Clerk with the respondents since 1970. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated w.e.f. 11.12.1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the respondent authority. Since no settlement could be arrived at, failure report came to be submitted. Respondent no.1 vide impugned order rejected to refer the dispute. Hence, this petition.

(3.) 0 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co -op. Marketing -cum -Processing Service Society Ltd., reported in 1999 I CLR 1194 SC, wherein the Court held that in such case the Court can mould relief by refusing back wages or by directing payment of part of back wages. He has next relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1999 II CLR 7, wherein it is held that merely because dispute was belatedly raised, it does not mean that the dispute ceased to exist; and delay in raising dispute is taken care of by not awarding full back wages, but, only 50% back wages for the entire period. He has next relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Karsanbhai L. Harijan v. Western Railway reported in 2001 (1) GLH 441, wherein this Court has followed the decision in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra). He, therefore, submitted that in any case the Competent Authority cannot refuse to refer the dispute, and therefore, the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside.