Point of Law- Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:-

(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 20.11.2009 at Annexure ‘A’.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to refer the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication forthwith.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refer the industrial dispute involved in this case for necessary adjudication to the appropriate Forum, in the interest of justice.

(D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other or further order or relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner - Union vide letter dated 24.07.2007 raised a demand on behalf of its members through Shri Ashwin C. Patel and others casual/contingent/contract employees of the Oil & natural Gas Corporation Ltd., who had completed 240 days of work together with all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the Standing Orders. In response to the above letter, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Vadodara, vide its letter dated 14.07.2008 informed the petitioner - Union that it can place the matter by raising an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central at Vadodara. Accordingly, vide letter dated 24.07.2008, the petitioner - Union submitted the dispute before the petitioner - Union submitted the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central at Vadodara.

2.1 The concerned Ministry, accordingly, consider the dispute raised by the petitioner - Union. However, the same was dismissed on account of that “the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 17 years. The dispute is, therefore, belated an stale.” Aggrieved from this decision, the petitioner - Union has preferred the present petition.

3. Heard Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ankit shah, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.Rajni Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.2 through video conferencing.

4. Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that in the present case, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. He has submitted that while passing the impugned order of rejection on the ground of delay of 17 years, no detailed reasons has been assigned. According to him, in absence of such reasons, the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 at Annexure - A issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour is not just, legal and valid. While inviting the attention of this court regarding the entire chain of the events from page nos.26 to 36 dated 24.07.2007, he has submitted that the workers who, represented by the present petitioner - Union, were left out by the management. According to him, the reasons for raising industrial dispute is specifically reflected in para-10 of the claim. He has also submitted that the persons who are left out by the ONGC have been reflected in the statement of demand, who have completed 240 days of service as per the Standing Order and as the said prayer was not granted to them, they have approached the Central Authority, however, it has rejected the same only on the ground of delay of 17 years.

4.1 Mr.Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are Standing Orders of the ONGC for regularization of the service of the workmen, however, this fact has not been considered by the competent authority of the Central Government. He has submitted that the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide its communication dated 14.07.2008 has made communication to the Working President intimating