JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

3. The petitioner challenges the Award dated 15th of September, 1998 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 71/92 on two grounds, namely, that there was unexplained delay of 10 years from the date of termination of services and the same was not at all considered by the Labour Court while deciding the matter and secondly that the Labour Court could not have ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 merely on the ground of completion of 240 days in an year in the absence of service having been rendered by the respondent No. 1 in relation to a permanent post before her termination. Reliance is placed in the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of (State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji Aher and another)1, reported in 1998(3) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)355, and another of the Apex Court in the matter of (The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 839, contending that even though there is no specific limitation provided for a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the reference cannot be made after inordinate delay and that too without any explanation.

4. The facts, the brief, relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein was engaged on daily wages since April, 1979 by the petitioner till 30th May, 1982. Her services were terminated with effect from 30th May, 1982 and consequently a dispute was raised and the same was referred for adjudication under section 10 of the said Act to the Labour Court to decide whether respondent No. 1 was entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service with effect from 30-5-1982. The claim of the respondent no. 1 was objected to by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 1 did not render service for continuous 240 days and that she was only a daily wager, besides there was no post available where she could be employed. The issue regarding bar of limitation was also raised by the petitioner as the reference was made about 9 years after the alleged termination.

5. The Labour Court rejected the contention regarding bar of limitation mainly on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353, and two other decisions of different High Courts. On merits, it has been held that the respondent No. 1 was working in relation to the work of road-Patoda-Pargaon and Daskhed-Pachangri road, during the period from 1-4-1979 to 30-5-1982 on daily wages and in the absence of any evidence being produced by the petitioner, an adverse inference has been drawn against the petitioner to hold that the respondent No. 1 had completed continuous service of 240 days in an year prior to the date of termination of her services and that therefore, she has been held to be entitled for reinstatement in the service from the date of termination with the continuity in service. The claim for back wages, however, has been rejected.

6. Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by an order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication. Apparently the provisions contained in section 10 do not prescribe any period of limitation for reference of any industrial dispute for its adjudication by the Labour Court. On the contrary, it specifically provides that it can refer the industrial dispute "at any time". In the circumstances, therefore, the point for determination which arises as to whether the reference made by the Government for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document