SATYANARAIN SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in the service of the respondent No. 2 Hindustan Copper Limited where he remained absent from duty for a period of three years. Consequently, the order terminating his services was passed by the respondent on 5/08/1988. Prior to the termination a charge sheet regarding wilful absence from duty was also issued on 11/05/1988 which was served on the petitioner but the petitioner did not respond to this charge sheet and finally the order of termination was passed on 5/08/1988 as already stated hereinbefore. The petitioner appears to have acquiesced with this situation and suddenly one fine morning in the year 1992 approached the Conciliation Officer raising a dispute about his termination. According to the respondents the petitioner did not approach the Conciliation Officer even in 1992, but it was for the first time in the year 1996 that he approached the Conciliation Officer. However, even if the year 1992 is taken to be the correct year in which the petitioner approached the Conciliation Officer for referring the dispute, it is apparent that he woke up from his slumber after more than 4 years for referring the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal regarding his termination. The Union of India, therefore, rejected the reference of the dispute on 8/08/1997 on the ground of delay.

(2.) The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of rejection of dispute filed this writ petition in the year 1996 essentially on the ground that there is no prescribed period of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act for referring the dispute to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal and hence the Union of India, Ministry of Labour was not justified in rejecting the dispute on the ground of delay. In support of this submission, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment and order of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U. P State Electricity Board reported in AIR 2001 SC 2562 : 2001-II-LLJ-788 and submitted that rejection of reference of dispute by Government cannot be quashed on the ground of long delay.

(3.) The respondents advocate countered the aforesaid submission and explained that the petitioner wilfully absented from duty and had failed to respond to the charge sheet which was issued to him prior to his termination. It was further submitted that the rejection of the reference of a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal in appropriate circumstance would be justified as it was held in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty & others reported in AIR 2000 SC 839 : 2000 (2) SCC 455 : 2000-I-LLJ-561 wherein it was held that although law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time so as to revive the matters which had become stale. The learned Judges have held that this power has to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner and if there is no rational basis for the Government to refer the dispute after long delay which in that case was 7 years, the Government would be justified in rejecting the reference of the dispute.