SHANTI DEVI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called in question an order dated 16.9.2009 in C.P. Case No. 14 of 2004, and another dated 15.10.2016 contained in Letter No. 4966/PiP-I.R./16 by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Division, Pipri, Sonebhadra. He has also prayed for a mandamus commanding the Deputy Labour Commissioner to refer the dispute between the parties for adjudication by Labour Court.

(2.) The background facts leading to the instant petition are that Ramjag Tripathi, late husband of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman'), was a Clerk on probation in Primary Section of Hindalco Primary School, Renukoot. The said Institution is run by a separate Management, distinct from Hindalco Industries Limited, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. By order dated 15.9.1975, the Management of the Institution informed him that his services were no more required since after 20th September, 1975. On 4.1.2003, after a gap of 28 years, the workman made an application to the President, Hindalco, alleging that he had made repeated representations to the authorities regarding illegal retrenchment of his service, but no heed was paid. In the meantime, he had attained the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years and consequently, he should be deemed to have retired. It was also claimed that since his retrenchment was illegal, therefore, all his dues be paid, treating him to have retired on the date of superannuation. The workman thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2035 of 2003 before this Court, which was dismissed by order dated 1.5.2003, holding that he had alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court. The workman thereafter filed an application dated 31.5.2003, alleging illegal retrenchment at the hand of the Management. It was admitted in the application that the retrenchment was made on 15.9.1975 and there was delay of 27 years 18 days in approaching the authorities under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act'), but the said delay was sought to be explained by alleging that in the meantime he had been making repeated written and oral representations to the Employer to reinstate him in service and they also kept assuring him of the same. However, when he could not get any relief from the Management, he had approached the authorities. It seems that upon filing of the said application, a case was registered before the Conciliation Officer, bearing C.P. Case No. 14 of 2004. The respondent company filed objection contending that the claim made by the workman in his application was totally false, fabricated and devoid of correct facts. He had approached the authorities after 28 years of his alleged retrenchment. After lapse of such long time, the Management was not retaining any record or evidence. The delay was fatal and accordingly the matter be consigned to record. In other words, the objection was that there was no live dispute in existence in the year 2003 about alleged illegal retrenchment done in the year 1975.

(3.) On 3.7.2004, the Conciliation Officer passed order to the effect that the delay in approaching the authorities under the Act is condoned and fixed 17.7.2004 for producing evidence by the parties. The Company sought to challenge the said order by filing an appeal before Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, contending that the order dated 3.7.2004 condoning delay was wholly illegal, as there was no live dispute in existence. It is noteworthy that the appeal filed by the Management was more in the shape of representation to higher authority as under law, no appeal against such order is contemplated. Thereafter, it seems that the matter remained pending before the Conciliation Officer and ultimately on 16.9.2009 the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Conciliation Officer) vide letter dated 16.9.2009 (impugned herein) held that there is no evidence before him to explain such long delay of 28 years and in his opinion, the matter should be consigned to record. The State Government accepted the recommendation made by the Conciliation Officer and passed an order on 8th October 2009, declining to make reference of the alleged dispute to the Labour Court. The reason disclosed in the order is gross delay of 27 years on the part of the workman in raising the dispute. The petitioner, who is widow of the deceased workman, filed an application dated 23.9.2016, once again making request for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Mirzapur Region, Pipri, Sonebhadra vide impugned letter dated 15.10.2016 informed the petitioner that C.P. Case No. 14 of 2004 had been consigned to record and the request for reference of dispute was declined long back and the same was also duly communicated vide letter dated 8.10.2019 through the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Consequently, it was not possible to accept the request contained in the application dated 23.9.2016.