BASANTA SAIKIA Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application has been filed praying for review / recall of the order dated 13.5.2002 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 121/ 2002.

(2.) The facts in brief may be noted at the outset. By an order dated 28.8.1992, the review petitioner, who was a Mazdoor in the Oil India Limited, was discharged from service after holding an enquiry. The charge levelled against the review petitioner is one of absence from duty without leave for almost one and half years. The petitioner, after unsuccessfully exhausting the remedy of a departmental appeal, instituted a writ proceeding before this Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 3576/94. By the order dated 30.3.1995, the aforesaid writ proceeding was disposed of by this Court by holding that the petitioner should avail of his remedies under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, in the year 1996, the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer and a conciliation proceeding under the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, was initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Dibrugarh. At the end of the aforesaid proceeding, an order dated 16.12.1996 was passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh, closing the aforesaid conciliation proceeding. Thereafter, the review petitioner approached this Court by instituting a second writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 1692/97. The said writ petition having been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22.11.2001 on the grounds and reasons stated, Writ Appeal No. 121/2002 was filed.

(3.) The Bench hearing Writ Appeal No. 121/2002 after taking note of the facts, took the view that the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner closing the conciliation proceeding on the ground of delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking his redress under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, thereby, rendering the claim raised as a stale claim and the agreement of the learned Single Judge with the said conclusion as expressed in the order dated 22.11.2001, was not correct, inasmuch as, in the facts of the case, no delay could be attributed to the petitioner. However, the Court taking into account the fact that reference of the matter for an industrial adjudication and the possibility of offshoot litigations arising from such adjudication would cause further delay, considered it prudent and appropriate to go into the merits of the dispute i.e. validity of the discharge of the petitioner from service. The records in original having been placed before the Court, the same were duly considered and taking into account certain letters written by the petitioner which were found to be an admission of the petitioner remaining absent without leave, the Division Bench found no infirmity with the order of discharge passed by the authority. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed by the order dated 13.5.2002. Aggrieved, the present review application has been filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant.