SRIPAL SINGH Vs. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The learned Single Judge considering the petition filed in the year 2010 and the fact that the scheme in question under which the Petitioner took benefit was of the year 1997 refused to interfere and dismissed the petition.

(3.) It is true that there is no limitation to take the matter in conciliation or to make a reference. However, the law is now well settled in a large number of judgments of the Apex Court that stale claims should not be entertained. We may gainfully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., 2000 84 FLR 673 where the Supreme Court has observed that the power to make a reference should be exercised reasonably and in the rational manner and not in mechanical fashion. In spite of absence of a statutory limitation period, such power cannot be exercised to revive settled matters or to refer stale disputes. Where a dispute becomes stale, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.