CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD Vs. SHAHEZADBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

(3.) THE petitioner challenges the Award dated 15th of September, 1998 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 71/92 on two grounds, namely, that there was unexplained delay of 10 years from the date of termination of services and the same was not at all considered by the Labour Court while deciding the matter and secondly that the Labour Court could not have ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 merely on the ground of completion of 240 days in an year in the absence of service having been rendered by the respondent No. 1 in relation to a permanent post before her termination. Reliance is placed in the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji Aher and another), reported in 1998 (3) Bom. C. R. (A. B.)355 : 1998 (2) Mh. L. J. 135, and another of the Apex Court in the matter of (The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty and others), reported in A. I. R. 2000 S. C. 839 : 2000 (2) S. C. C. 455, contending that even though there is no specific limitation provided for a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the reference cannot be made after inordinate delay and that too without any explanation.