LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-301

GOVIND SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 29, 2009
GOVIND SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the appropriate Government wherein the reference has been declined of the alleged dispute between the workman and the employer on the ground that the same is belated over ten years of the cause of action without any explanation for such a long delay and, therefore, there does not exist industrial dispute.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the question of delay is required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court and, therefore, merely because there is delay on the part of the workman in making the demand, cannot be taken as a ground for not referring the dispute to the Labour Court. He contends that the impugned order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure-P-6), therefore, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Perusal of the record shows that the services of the workman were terminated on 03.10.1996. He was working as a Telephone Operator with the respondents No. 3 and 4. He was appointed on 02.01.1996 and he continued as such till 03.10.1996 when his services were terminated by the respondent-Management. He preferred a demand notice dated 15.10.2006. Perusal of the same would show that no explanation whatsoever has been put forth by the workman showing therein that before issuance of the demand notice, no effort was made by the workman to put forth his claim before the respondent-Management. What has been alleged therein is that the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with while terminating him from service. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, although the requirement of law is that it should be reasonable and justifiable, the claim of the workman cannot be said to be sustainable at this belated stage. After a long period of 10 years, it cannot be said that an industrial disputes much less a dispute still subsists when the cause of action arose to the workman i.e. 03.10.1996 when his services were terminated. In the absence of explanation, order dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the appropriate authority, cannot be said to unjustified or illegal.