A. K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL)

( 1 ) PETITIONER was employed by respondent No. 2 - M/s. Ashok Hotel as painter ondaily wage basis w. e. f. 1/05/1971. His services were terminated on 1/02/1978. He raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referredfor adjudication to Labour Court IV. Labour Court gave award dated 22/04/1993 holding that termination of petitioner s service were illegal and unjustified andhe was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Pursuant to this award petitioner was allowed to join the duties on 6/07/1995 as technical Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 1,050. 00-1,425. 00. On 20/09/1994petitioner protested against the grant of this pay scale and demanded the payscale of Rs. 1,100. 00-1,640. 00w. e. f. 17/05/1998. In January 1995 he even lodged acomplaint with Labour Commissioner against the Management that it was committingunfair labour practice. It was followed with many representations. Ultimately on 2 1/05/1996, just ten days before the petitioner was to retire from service i. e. on 3 1/05/1996, petitioner filed statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer raisingindustrial dispute claiming the aforesaid pay scale of RS. 1100. 00 1640. 00. Conciliationproceedings ended in failure. Failure report was submitted and ultimately respondentno. 1 passed impugned order dated 22/12/1997 declining to makereference by giving the following reasons:-

"workman Shrihari Chand has retired on 31. 5. 96 Undated claim wasreceived in this office in May 1996. Cause of action admittedly arose on17. 5. 78. The Claim which has been filed when the workman is on the vergeof retirement that too 18 years after cause of action arose is hightlybelated and is, therefore, not fit for reference. "

( 2 ) ONE year after the aforesaid rejection, petitioner submitted review petitiondated 1 2/02/1998 requesting respondent no. 1 to review its order dated 22/12/1997. This review was also dismissed by impugned order dated 1/09/1998. Relevant portion of this order reads as under: it is an admitted fact that the workman retired on 31. 5. 96 and has receivedall his retirement benefits. Though the workman did. raise a disputeregarding illegal termination of his services but did not raise the issue ofpromotion assuch. The workman rejoined on 6. 7. 94 and had all the time toraise the dispute but he chose to do on the verge of his retirement, that isbarely 10 days before his superannuation. Even the demand notice wassent on 2. 5. 96. After considering all the facts and circumstances of thecase, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute does not meritadjudication. The review petition does not succeed and the same is, thereby,dismissed. " illegal termination of his services but dismissed.

( 3 ) PETITIONER filed this petition challenging order dated 22/12/1997and 1/09/1998.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid facts show that the reference is mainly rejected on the ground thatthe dispute raised by the petitioner workman was highly belated and the issue ofpay scale/promotion was raised by the petitioner when he was on the verge of hisretirement i. e. barely ten days before his superannuation. Although, pursuant tothe award rendered by the Labour Court holding his termination as illegal he hadrejoinded his duties almost two years ago.

( 5 ) PETITIONER retired from service on 31/05/1996 i. e. almost four years ago. No useful purpose would be served directing the respondent to reconsider thematter or refer the industrial dispute at this belated stage with regard to the payscale/promotion of the petitioner relating to the period when he was in service. Thisis not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the impugned orders inexercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is wellestablished that the function of the is an "appropriate Government" while making orrefusing to make reference discharges administrative function and "apropriategovernment" is to form anopinion that industr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document