( 1 ) THE workmen of K. G. I. D. Employees Union have presented this petition challenging the validity and legality of the award passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1994, dated 26th September, 1997, urging various legal contentions.

( 2 ) THE various legal contentions urged in this petition need not be adverted to in this order as the tribunal has rejected the reference on two main grounds, namely, the points of dispute referred by the State Government to it for its adjudication conflict with the demand made by the Union, therefore, the demand of the workmen is beyond the scope of the reference, hence the reference has to be treated as bad. The 2nd ground on which the reference is rejected by the 1st respondent-Tribunal is that the claim of the Union with regard to the payment of Bonus from 1980 and its demand is dated 8-9-1992 as could be noticed from the factual report submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government for exercise of its power to make a reference. Therefore, the demand is for the period from 1980 which was raised in the year 1992 after a lapse of 12 years for which there is no explanation was offered by the Union for allowing the long lapse of delay. Therefore on that ground also reference was rejected by the Tribunal.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union, Mr. L. Leelakrishnan, submits placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Management of M/s, Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, Madras v The Workers and Others, he has placed reliance at paragraph 19, in support of the case of the petitioner. He has further placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. In the case of Workmen of M/s. Mysore Paper Mills Limited v Management of M/s. Mysore Paper Mills limited and Another, at paragraph 11, law has been succinctly laid down, which supports the case of the Union. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the ground for rejection of the reference by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law, hence the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ certiorari.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel has further elaborated his submission contending that the second ground of delay in raising the dispute on which the reference is rejected by the Tribunal also is unsustainable in law, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court which is M/s. Avon services Production Agencies (Private) Limited v Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others, holding that the delay in raising the dispute by the workmen is no ground either for the government either to refuse to make a reference or reject the reference. The Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court has interpreted the various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport corporation, Central Offices and Another v Govinda Setty and Another, has held the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to the provisions of the Act. Either the government or the Labour Court can refuse to exercise its power either to make a reference or to reject the reference by the Labour Court/tribunal after making a reference for adjudication of the industrial dispute as per the points referred to it on the ground that there is a delay in raising the dispute. Further, this Court has taken the view that delay by itself is no ground to reject the claim of the workmen for the reason, that the industrial dispute between the parties would exist till it is adjudicated on merits either by the Labour Court or the Tribunal.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Mehaboob Ali Khan, appearing on behalf of the respondents would sought to justify the award passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal contending that the points of dispute referred to the Tribunal by the Government is very vague.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document