Industrial disputes must be referred to the tribunal within a reasonable time; excessive delay may render claims stale and prejudicial to the employer's operations.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCR) No.43 of 2016 rejecting the reference filed by the present petitioner on the ground of delay.

2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the Post of Clerk on 16.11.1996 and his service was terminated on 22.07.1998. As per the claim of the petitioner that at the time of termination of service, dispute seeking relief of regularization was pending, however, without seeking any approval from the respondent, had put to an end the service of the petitioner, without following the mandatory provision of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1998, the reference came to be filed in the year 2006, which was registered as a reference LCR No.43 of 2006, petitioner had adduced the documentary evidence on record in the nature of demand notice, the press note suggesting the vacant post and the muster roll etc. As against the same, respondent has also produced the documentary evidence in addition to the evidence of chief examination suggesting the payment of retrenchment compensation and the notice. Learned reference Court, after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, has concluded the reference against the present petitioner, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mishra for the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in dismissing the reference on the ground of delay, as Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT would not be applicable to the Labour laws. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that after terminating the service of the petitioner, the work was carried out through out-source agency and though petitioner has established the existence of the work, learned Labour Court, instead of awarding the reference in favour of the petitioner, has dismissed the same. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submits that the witness of the respondent, in his cross examination, admitted that there were several vacant posts in the permanent set up of the Nagar Palika and due to the expansion of the Nagar Palika, work was also enhanced. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that instead of holding the dispute alive, learned Labour Court has concluded the reference by holding the stale dispute and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that the identically situated employees, namely, Jitendrabhai Bhugilal Raval whose service was also terminated along with petitioner, was directed to be reinstated by the learned Reference Court in reference LCR No.160 of 2012. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that several junior employees, who filed the reference challenging the termination order, which was passed along with the petitioner, has got the relief of reinstatement, however, learned Labour Court has dismissed the reference on the ground of delay in the case of present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that after termination of the service, the petitioner has filed the complaint I.T. No.24 of 1998, on rejection of the said complaint in the year 2012, the reference was filed in the year 2016. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that therefore, the findings arrived by the learned Reference Court that there was a delay of 18 years is erroneous, as from the 2012, if one would be counted delay up to 2016 then it comes to only four years, however, learned Referen