Point of Law: It is again on issue of delay where there is no express provision for it. Whereas, in the present case, there is express provision providing limitation to prefer a Reference / claim before the Labour Court in the case of individual industrial dispute and therefore, such authority is also not applicable at all.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment and award dated 26.06.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) Case No.289 of 2014 whereby, the Labour Court had rejected the Reference filed by the present petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under.

2.1 The petitioner-workman, as per his Statement of Claims was working since last 2 years honestly and diligently and he was paid Rs.3500/- per month by the Respondent-Corporation in Garden as also Water Branch as Helper / Labourer. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not provide Earned Leave Card, Presence Card as also Pay Slip. Only his presence was noted in the Muster Roll and except that, the petitioner was not provided with anything. Though he demanded every benefits as provided under the Labour Laws but it has not been provided / paid. According to the case of the petitioner, he completed 240 days in each year and he was doing the same work as permanent employees were doing. It is further stated that all of a sudden on 3.10.1999, by oral order, he was terminated from his service and while terminating him, no notice or notice pay was given, no departmental proceedings initiated and no reason assigned for terminating his services. Therefore, as asserted in the Reference, the respondent has committed breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as, ‘the Act’). It is his further case that after the service of the petitioner terminated, several workmen were employed by respondent without offering service to the petitioner in the case of necessity even.

2.2 As observed in the impugned judgment and award, on a complaint made by petitioner to the appropriate Government, on failure of conciliation, the Conciliation Officer-Assistant Labour Commissioner vide his communication dated 25.3.2014 informed him that in view of Section 2A of ‘the Act’, petitioner may approach the Labour Court directly for the individual industrial dispute. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had directly approached the Labour Court by filing the aforesaid Reference.

2.3 On being served with the notice, respondent appeared and filed their written reply vide Exh.9 denying the claim made by the petitioner. It was specifically mentioned in the reply, as referred to in para-5 of the impugned judgment and award that the order of oral termination even if it is presumed to be true, since it had been challenged after 15 years in the year 2014, on the ground of delay, the Reference be rejected. Not only that, in view of insertion of Sub- Sections (2) and (3) to Section 2A of ‘the Act’ with effect from 15.9.2010, the Reference is required to be filed under it within 3 years from the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service, as specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 2A of ‘the Act’. It is further pleaded in the reply that inconsistent plea is raised by the petitioner-workman. If his complaint for termination made to the appropriate Government is seen, he claimed to be working in Garden section of the Corporation as Gardener/Labourer since 2 years whereas in the Statement of Claims, he claimed that he was working in the Garden section and Water section as Helper / Labourer. It is further asserted in the reply that, no evidence is produced to show that he was working in the Garden section or even Water section. It is further pleaded that no specific date on which he started working is also mentioned by him. It is further asserted that since Reference is filed after about 15 years of inordinate delay from the date of alleged termination, any relief even if his termination appears to be or proves to be illegal, be refused when there is no dispute alive. However, since 15.9.2010 with insertion of the provision for making Reference by the individual workman directly before the Court complaining about discharge