HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition, has challenged the order Annexure 6, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government dated March 6,1987, by which the Government referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Udaipur :

(2.) ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) THEN comes the question: whether the Government was justified in making the reference after the lapse of fourteen years of the existence of the so-called industrial dispute? The services of the non-petitioner No. 2 Gopal Singh were terminated by the petitioner with effect from May, 14, 1973, and the respondent No. 2 rest contended with the order of termination nearly for about ten years and made an application before the Conciliation Officer on December 6, 1983. The conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the Government, vide its order dated April, 18, 1985, refused to refer the dispute, but subsequently, vide its order dated March 6, 1987, referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Though no limitation is provided under Section 10 (1) of the Act to refer the dispute for adjudication by the State Government but it must be borne in mind that it will be inequitable to refer the State Claim for adjudication after the lapse of about fourteen years as it will likely to adversely affect the industrial harmony by way of reviving the old controversy. Though the words "any time" appearing in Section 10 of the Act does not admit any limitation to the power of the State Government to refer the dispute for adjudication, but the same cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. An industrial dispute should not be referred, which already stood settled by the lapse of time. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of : Jharakhud Collieries (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (2) that the policy of industrial adjudication is that every State Claim should not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay, as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claim after long lapse of time, it is necessary, also, to take into account the unsettling effect, which it is likely to have on the employer's financial arrangements and to avoid dislocation of the industry. In the present case, the delay of ten years for raising the dispute has not been explained by the respondents and earlier the State Government declining to make reference on the ground of delay, also, but later on, while passing the order Annexure 6, even did not consider the ground of delay and ignored the same.