MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is alleged that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Conductor on November 16, 1985 and was removed vide order dated June 19, 1986. He submitted a complaint Under Section 12 of the I. D. Act, 1947 on September 2, 1994. Reply to the complaint was filed on September 13, 1994 against which the petitioner filed counter reply on October, 1994 ultimately the conciliation officer gave his failure report vide letter dt. November 11, 1994. The respondents refused to make reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 while forwarding a copy of the same to the Conciliation Officer. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are bound to make a reference but the respondents No. l and 2 refused to make the reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 on the ground of delay, charges of corruption against the petitioner and further that the petitioner workman did not complete 240 days in one calender year which is not permissible as the respondents have no right to refuse to make the reference. He has relied on Amar Chand v. State ; and Balkishan v. Union of India (1990-I-LLJ-262) (Raj), Ramesh Chand v. U. O. I. , and Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills v. Slate decided on February 26, 1993.

(3.) MR. Bhati has not disputed the letter dated August 25, 1995 and settled legal position but he submits that the appropriate Government can refuse if the claim made is frivolous and belated. He submits that the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the case law. He also submits that if reference is made for adjudication the Tribunal/labour Court will also consider the delay factor. He has relied on Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay (1964-I-LLJ-351 ) (SC ).