A workman must pursue industrial disputes within a reasonable time; undue delay without satisfactory explanation can render the dispute non-existent, as established in Supreme Court precedents.

ORDER :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2024 passed in the captioned Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.4559 of 2024 filed by the present appellant–original petitioner, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has fell in error in rejecting the Writ Petition assailing the award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No.100 of 2008 on the ground of delay. He submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have failed to appreciate the facts in its true perspective and have erred in rejecting the Reference proceedings as well as the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr. reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1. It is submitted that initially, the appellant was working as a Watchman and was appointed in the year 1984 and was terminated in the year 1985, and the dispute culminated into Reference (LCV) No.998 of 1986, which was dismissed for default in the year 1987 and thereafter, Hon’ble the Chief Minister has directed the Irrigation Department to consider the case of the appellant for illegal termination in the year 2002 and ultimately, he raised a fresh dispute, which culminated into Reference (T) No.100 of 2008. It is submitted that the advocate, who was appearing in the proceedings had passed away. Thus, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the dispute was not kept alive by the appellant and hence, the Reference proceedings could not have been rejected on the ground of delay.

3. Per contra, Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned AGP has submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with as the appellant has remained negligent in pursuing his grievance. It is submitted that initially, Reference was dismissed for default in the year 1987 and the appellant did not do anything for all these years and ultimately, raised another dispute, which culminated into Reference proceedings being Reference (T) No. 100 of 2008, which has been precisely rejected by the Labour Court by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Prabhakar (supra). The learned AGP has also placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.11.2024 in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 891 and it was submitted that it was necessary for the appellant to pursue his Reference proceedings and he cannot blame the advocate who was appearing on his behalf. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has also precisely confirmed the award and hence, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained.

4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in the captioned Writ Petition. The appellant has assailed his termination before the Labour Court, and vide award dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) No. 100 of 2008, the reference was rejected. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Watchman on monthly pay of Rs.14.50 on 19.01.1984 and his services came to be terminated on 17.06.1985. The said termination culminated into Reference proceedings being Reference (LCV) No.998 of 1986, which was dismissed for default on 22.04.1987. Thereafter, the appellant went into slumber. It appears that he made an application before the office of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, which directed the Irrigation Department to consider the case of the appellant for illegal termination on 15.12.2002. Thus, instead of getting the Reference proceedings restored to its original file, after a period of almost 15 years, he obtained a recommendation from the office of Hon’ble the Chief Minister. His remissness does not end here. After a period of 6 years, he again raised a dispute, which culminated into Reference (T) No. 100