MICRO INTERCONNEXION PVT LTD Vs. R S MARDOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned government Advocate for the respondent no. 1 and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case are in a narrow compass. The five workmen working in the petitioner company were members of the respondent no. 2 - Union. The petitioner terminated the services of these five workers with effect from 14th September, 1992. It is the contention of the petitioners that since 1993 the petitioners ceased to represent the workmen. However, on 23rd August, 1996, a letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner was received by the petitioners for discussion in respect of the alleged industrial dispute arising out of the termination of services of the said workmen in the year 1992. The petitioners contended that the relevant papers were misplaced and, therefore, they could not make out their case before the Asst. Labour Commissioner and it was also contended that the workmen were otherwise gainfully employed elsewhere and the matter be treated as closed. However, the Asst. Labour Commissioner made his Report to the State Government and thereafter on 15th July, 1998, the State government passed the Order for making a Reference of the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, Goa. The Union filed its statement of claims. However, the petitioners could not file any reply because the papers were missing and thereafter the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of the Reference on the main ground that the reference was made with considerable delay and laches and the respondent no. 1 failed to apply its mind to the circumstance of gross delay in making representation to the Asst. Labour commissioner and thereafter Report of the Asst. Labour Commissioner to the Government. Some other points are also raised, but the learned counsel for the petitioners states that those are not much relevant and those are not being pressed. Hence, quashing of the Reference is sought only on the ground that there was delay in making the Reference and that has caused prejudice to the petitioners to make out their case.

(3.) IN this respect it has to be considered whether the delay can be a ground for quashing the Reference. The Apex Court in the matter of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing service Society Ltd. and Anr (1999) 6 SCC 82 observed that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation act of 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, and the relief under it cannot be denied to the workmen merely on the ground of delay. This ruling is also referred to in the other ruling of the supreme Court in the matter of Balbir Singh vs. Punjab roadways and Anr, (2001) 1 SCC 133 and it is again held that the delay cannot be a ground for quashing the Reference.