ROHITASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.05.2012 passed by the respondent No.1 not considering the case of the petitioner fit to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, he was working with the respondent as a workman since 03.04.1976. On 10.12.1990, a charge sheet was issued to him, and thereafter the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, however according to the petitioner he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing in the said enquiry and his services were terminated on 22.03.1991. It appears that the petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who submitted a failure report as per Annexure/2, and the matter was forwarded to the Government for taking appropriate decision. The respondent No.1 thereafter vide the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 refused to refer the dispute to the labour court for adjudication on the ground that the dispute was raised by the petitioner belatedly after more than 20 years without any justification for the delay. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Vivek Goyal for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kuldeep Singh Versus General Manager, Instrument Design Development And Facilities Centre & Anr., 2010 14 SCC 176, and the decision of this Court in case of Ganesh Singh Versus State of Raj. & Ors., 2009 4 WLC(Raj) 418 and in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Shopping Centre Vikas Samiti Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006 1 RajLW 588, submitted that the respondent No.1 could not have declined to make reference only on the ground of delay and latches. He also submitted that the respondent No.1 had failed to mention any reasons for declining to make the reference and hence the said order of the respondent No.1 is bad in the eye of law.