JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J

Delay condoned.

This special leave petition arises from the judgment dated June 06, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, whereby writ appeal of the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management') herein was allowed resulting in setting aside the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Petitioner herein in service without back wages and other benefits, even when the said order was upheld by the Single Judge of the said High Court in the writ petition filed by the Management challenging the award.

2. We may state at the outset that the main factor with which the High Court has been influenced is that the Petitioner, whose services were terminated on April 01, 1985, raised the industrial dispute only in the year 1999, i.e. after a period of more than fourteen years. On the facts of this case, the High Court has held that there was no 'live' dispute and even when no period of limitation is provided for raising the disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable, there could not have been a reference at such a belated stage, inasmuch as, after a lapse of such abnormal time, the dispute ceases to exist and, therefore, the appropriate Government had no jurisdiction or power to make a reference of a non-existent dispute. The Petitioner has questioned the appropriateness of this view taken by the High Court.

3. Primary submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that once it is accepted that the law of limitation does not apply, the Government could make the reference even if the dispute was raised belatedly and in such circumstances power of the Labour Court is to mould the relief. In support of this contention, learned Counsel referred to the judgment of this Court in Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager,Haryana Roadways, AIR (2014) SCW 5515. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, we scan through the basic facts of the present case.

4. The Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Sericulture Department, Government of Karnataka, Belgaum on April 01, 1984. His services were terminated on April 01, 1985. During the period April 01, 1985 till 1999, the Petitioner did not approach any judicial/quasi-judicial authority challenging the said termination. In fact, not even a notice or legal notice was served upon the Management questioning the validity of the said termination. However, some time in the year 1999, the Petitioner approached the appropriate Government alleging that his services were terminated illegally and in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Insofar as delay is concerned, in the claim made by the Petitioner, only explanation given was that he had approached the Management on several occasions with request to reinstate him in service and pay back wages and other consequential benefits. He also alleged that though the Management initially assured that they would reinstate him, but dragged on the matter on one pretext or the other and when they ultimately told him that they would not reinstate him into service, he had no alternative but to raise the industrial dispute. The conciliation proceedings have started, which ended in failure. Thereafter, the appropriate Government referred the matter regarding validity of termination of the Petitioner for adjudication.

5. The Management had taken a specific plea in the conciliation proceedings as well as before the Labour Court that such a reference was not competent and the Petitioner was not entitled to any relief when he had raised the dispute after fourteen years of his termination. On merits it was pleaded that the Management had not terminated the services and, in fact, it is the Petitioner who left the services. Various issues were framed by the Labour Court, which included a specific issue as to whether any relief could be given when the dispute was ra