JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---An order, passed on the 11th of January, 1989, by the Presiding Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay under section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the Act) refusing to make a reference, is impugned in the present petition.

2. The petitioner joined the service of Air India, the third respondent herein, with effect from the 10th of March, 1987 as an Assistant Flight Purser. An incident took place on the 5th of January, 1980 while the petitioner was on duty on a flight proceeding from Bombay to London via Quwait. It is alleged that the petitioner molested a minor girl Miss. Jain, a passenger on the flight. On the 5th of February, 1980 a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. On 8th of October, 1980 an order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner. On the very day the third respondent filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act for grant of approval to the order of dismissal. On 24th May, 1984 the approval was granted. In the meantime the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which also was dismissed on the 3rd of January, 1981.

3. On the 12th of November, 1987 the petitioner raised a dispute under section 10 read with section 12 of the Act. On 30th of December, 1988 the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bombay, being the conciliation Officer, submitted his failure report. A copy of the proceedings in conciliation is annexed at Exhibit-B and a copy of the failure report is annexed at Exhibit-C to the petition. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by an order dated 11th of January, 1989 declined to make a reference for adjudication of the dispute on the ground that the dispute is highly related inasmuch as it has been raised after lapse of a period of seven years and no justification has been given for the delay. The copy of the order is annexed at Exhibit-D to the petition. Taking exception to the said order, the petitioner, on the 3rd of February, 1989 has preferred the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Kochar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has streneously urged that the Government has erred in declining to make a reference. He submitted that the Government is factually in error while refusing to make a reference on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of seven years. He pointed out that the approval application filed by the third respondent was pending for the period between 8th of October, 1980 and the 24th of May, 1984. Hence, till such time that the approval was granted the order of dismissal cannot be said to have been confirmed. It is only after the approval was granted on the 24th of May, 1984 that the petitioner can be expected to raise a dispute. Mr. Kochar, pointed out that the petitioner was ill-advised and he, therefore, continued making representations to the higher authorities which included the Minister for Aviation, the Prime Minister as also the President of India. After the petitioner realised that no justice was done despite the representations, he, on the 12th of November, 1987, raised the present dispute.

5. Mr. Kochar further submitted that there was no period of limitation prescribed for raising an industrial dispute. All that the Government was required to find out is whether an industrial dispute exists. Once this issue is answered in the affirmative the Government is ordinarily expected to make a reference. Since there is no limitation prescribed the reference can not be declined on the ground of delay as has been done in the present case. Reliance is placed on the case of (Balubhai J. Panchal v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1983(46) F.L.R. 207, wherein it is observed:

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, sections 12(2), (5), 10(1) - Conciliation Officer making failure report - Appropriate Government not making reference under section 12(2) on ground that demand is barred by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document