This writ petition is directed against the award dated 18-5-2006 passed in Reference No. 282 of 2001 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga.

2. On a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court passed an award inter alia directing the respondents to reinstate the claimant into service as daily wage worker on prevailing daily wages within a period of 3 months from the date of award coming into force i.e., on its publication and denied continuity of service and back wages for any period.

3. The case of the respondent is that he is a graduate in Engineering and he has worked as a daily wage employee with effect from 16-6-1984 continuously till 1-9-1985 and he had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year and denial of work to him amounts to violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and sought for conciliation of the dispute. On failure of the conciliation, the Conciliation Officer is stated to have reported the same to the Government and the State Government by its order dated 13-9-2001 referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence held that the respondent has completed 240 days of continuous service in a year and denial of work to him amounts to violation of Section 25-F of the LD. Act and the respondent is entitled for reinstatement.

4. The petitioners had filed a counter-statement to the claim petition of the respondent and have raised a specific plea that the respondent is not a workman and he is not entitled for the benefit under Section 25-F of the LD. Act and further it is specifically stated that the respondent cannot seek re-employment after a lapse of 16 years and there is inordinate delay in filing the claim petition.

5. The Labour Court at paragraph 16 observed that 15 years delay in raising the dispute itself cannot be concluded that dispute had become stale and further observed that disputes become stale when person gets better service or some other avocation and loses interest in the job he had lost sometime earlier and further observed that the respondent is aged around 42 years and is unemployed and also observed that the problem of unemployment is rampant and it was more among Civil Engineers for years. By these observations, the Labour Court observed that as there is a delay, it would not disentitle the respondent seeking adjudication of the dispute.

6. Sri Jagadish Mundargi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the dispute had become stale and the Government at the first instance had not even referred the dispute to the Labour Court. He also submitted that the;-e is no industrial dispute existing as on the date of seeking conciliation of the dispute by the respondent. He further submitted that when a specific plea is raised regarding the delay, the Labour Court ought to have considered the delay before granting the relief. The observation of the Labour Court that the respondent was not employed is not a ground for entertaining the dispute even after 15 years. In support of his contention that the delay has become fatal to the Government, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.G. Chandrappagol v The Assistant Executive Engineer, Ghataprabha Right Bank Canal Construction, Sub-Division, Hidkal, Belgaum Districtl and submitted that the delay of 13 years in making an application before the Labour Officer seeking conciliation and reference of dispute to the Labour Court is held to be fatal and the Division Bench of this Court has held that such dispute becomes stale. He further submitted that at such a distance of time, the Government will not be having necessary records or the persons who have dealt with such matters and particularly, in view of the long lapse of time, he would work disadvantageous to the Government to defend the case. He also submitted that in this case also there is a delay of 15 years and