GANESH PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner is aggrieved by an order of refusal to make reference on the ground of delay as per order (P-10) dated 29-8-2000 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour.

(2.) PETITIONER was employed as casual labour in the year 1978 and was brought to the cadre of monthly rated casual labour. He was working in Central Railway. A service card was also issued to the petitioner. In the year 1984, while the petitioner was removed other contemporary gangmen were retained. Petitioner was again re-appointed at Harda. Petitioner fell ill and was admitted in the Railway Hospital, Burhanpur on 17-6-1995. During the period of his illness, petitioner was under treatment in the Railway Hospital, was shown to be absent and an S. F. 5 alleging misconduct of unauthorised absence was served on him. He has not been afforded any opportunity to submit reply to the S. F. 5 and on the assurance that no further action will be taken petitioner's signature on two blank papers were obtained by the P. W. 1. (R ). Harda. At the same time the S. F. 5 has also been taken back from him. Petitioner is ignorant about English language. He has neither been read over nor explained the contents of S. F. 5 in Hindi, hence, he. could not understand as to what for charge- sheet was given to him. Another order (P-2) was served on 22-10- 1986. The services of the petitioner were terminated w. e. f. 22-11-1986. Petitioner again fell ill and became fit to resume duty on 26-5-1987 as per certificate (P-3) issued by the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. Central Railway, Bhusawal. Petitioner submits that the order of removal is illegal and contrary to the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Petitioner preferred an appeal belatedly after the prescribed period of 45 days. As petitioner was fit to resume the duly on 26-5-1987, memo of appeal (P-4), dated 9-6-1987 has been placed on record. Appeal of the petitioner has not been decided. Having failed to get any decision on appeal, petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. An application was filed under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act on 30-10-1999. The Assistant Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Union of India on 22-5-2000. On 29-8-2000, respondent No. 1 passed an order (P-10) and refused to make the reference on the ground that the dispute has been raised after the lapse of 14 years without any valid reasons for the delay. Hence, aggrieved by the order (P-10) this writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is contended in the return that no statutory appeal was preferred within the stipulated period and mercy appeal was submitted on 9-6-1987. There is no provision of making mercy appeal. Representation was again submitted on 11-11-1992. As the petitioner did not do anything in the matter and approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner belatedly, there was inordinate delay, as such order passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to make a reference, is proper and no interference is called for in the same.