SALAL WORKERS UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19 Sept. 1991 an office memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Labour under the signatures of Desk Officer Whereby the industrial disputes projected by petitioner No. 2 Ram Kishore were reflected. In this memorandum, it was stated that the petitioner No.2 had assailed the action of the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project with regard to denial of promotional benefit to him. According to the recital contained in this memorandum, the second petitioner Ram Kishore had felt aggrieved of the promotion given to Balak Ram and Thakur Dass and had contended that, on parity with them, he was also entitled to same treatment. The office memorandum had called upon the management of Salal Hydro Electric Project to either settle the disputes amicably between itself and the workman or else to agree for reference thereafter for adjudication by a forum under the Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that in response to this communication, respondent No. 4 and 5 decided to propose reference by raising a number of pleas to which I need not advert for fear of prejudicing the final outcome in the competent authority. Suffice it for me to say that, on receiving the response from the respondents No. 4 & 5, the Ministry of Labour vide impugned order dated 22.12.1992 rejected the petitioners prayer for reference of disputes in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground mentioned below: - "The case has been raised belatedly i.e. after a lapse of six years of the cause of action without explaining the reasons justifying the delay."

(2.) MR .Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the action of the government in not making the reference was justified since the petitioners could not explain the delay in approaching the government for making the reference. Even while making the submission, Mr. Singh admits that under law no period of limitation as such is prescribed and that even though the claims might be considered to be suffering from laches, yet they are not time barred.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the Govt has denied justice to the petitioners by refusing to refer the industrial disputes to the competent court for adjudication/settlement. If the claim of the petitioners was not time barred, because of there being no prescribed period of limitation therefor, it was for the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to decide the merits of the claims on all permissible grounds including those related to delay and laches. It was not strictly within the domain of the government to refuse to refer the industrial disputes only because one of the parties had stated that it was belated. This was within the domain and purview of the court under the Act. After all, the court alone was the final Judge of all disputed questions and it should have been best left to the court to decide as to whether, on a given set -up circumstances and facts, the petitioners could have been denied the relief because their claims, if found to be legitimate were delayed.