HASSAM NOOR MOHAMED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 18.6.1995 (Annexure "E") passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India refusing the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the sole ground that, dispute was raised belatedly without furnishing adequate reasons for the same.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as casual worker with the Kandla Dock Labour Board in 1979. From 18.7.1986, he was not allowed to work. He moved an application on 5.1.1987 before the authorities of the Kandla Dock Labour Board that he should be giving any details or particulars of the representation with regard to the dates or the officers before whom the oral representations were made, a bald statement has been made that the petitioner made several representations orally but same were not considered and he again made representation on 1.8.1994 and on 23.8.1994 he was informed that his belated appeal cannot be considered. After receiving this reply dated 28.8.1994, the petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for initiating conciliation proceedings. A failure report was submitted on 15.2.1995 and on 18.6.1995 the impugned order was passed refusing the reference on the sole ground of delay. When the matter came up before the Court the Division Bench Judgment reported in 1995(2) GLH (UJ 9) Page 15 [Kheda Jilla General Mazdoor Mandal vs. State of Gujarat] was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on that basis notice was issued. It was also pointed out that on the basis of this Division Bench Judgment of our own High Court the petitions involving the question of the refusal of the reference on the sole ground of delay have been entertained. However Mr. Shailesh Brahmbhatt after service of the notice entered appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 3 i.e. Kandla Dock Labour Board and he has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 14.12.1995 seeking to traverse the claim of the petitioner. In this affidavit-in-reply, it has been interalia stated that the petitioner had approached the conciliation officer at the belated stage after a period of about seven and half years. It has also been stated that the petitioner was given wage card on 11.5.1978. This wage card was discontinued in October, 1979 when benefit of attendance allowance was extended to 350 casual workers. At the time when the demand of casual workers increased in March, 1982 he was again issued a wage card on 25.3.1982 ; last booking as on ATCW was obtained by the worker in May, 1983 and thereafter the petitioner did not turn up for booking at call stand. He failed to submit his photograph for issue of photo identification card. He had also failed to turn up for verification etc. and therefore, as per the orders of the then Deputy Chairman, Kandla Dock Labour Board, his name was removed from the rolls of the Additional Temporary Workers vide notice dated 16.10.1985. It has been then stated in this affidavit-in-reply under the signature of Shri R.L. Nagawadia, working as Secretary-cum-P.O. in Kandla Dock Labour Board that the Chairman, Kandla Dock Labour Board condoned the absence of the five ATCW dated 13.6.1986 received from the Deputy Chairman, Kandla Dock Labour Board with instruction to enrol them in the first pool of casual workers. But the identification mark entered in the register (A Black mole on left side of the stomach) was not seen on the body of the person, who presented himself as Shri Massam Noormohmed and hence as discussed with the Deputy Chairman, Kandla Dock Labour Board, the wage card of Shri Hassam Noormohmed was cancelled with effect from 1.8.1986. With respect to the appeal preferred by the present petitioner Hassam Noormohmed it has been stated that it was not considered fit at belated stage after seven and half years to entertain appeal as would appear from the memorandum dated 25.8.1994. It has been further stated that the General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union, Gandhidham took up the matter vide their letter dated 18.1.1994 which was replied by the Administrative Body, Kandla Dock Labour Board vide their letter dated 1.3.1994, that there was no justification to review the case of the present petitioner at this belated stage.

(3.) Apart from the aforesaid factual submissions Mr. Brahmbhatt has submitted that it cannot be said that the delay is not a relevant consideration for the Government to refuse the making of reference and therefore no exception can be taken to the refusal of the reference on the ground of delay. He has submitted that apart from the fact that there was no question of making any reference and the Government cannot be said to have acted unreasonably in refusing to make the reference, his contention is that even as a question of principle of law it cannot be said that delay in approaching the conciliation officer for raising dispute cannot be a ground for refusing the reference. He has placed reliance on the following decisions: