The court emphasized the importance of timely raising of disputes and the applicability of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases of delay.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 01.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the claim of the workman was rejected basically on the ground of delay.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The petitioner who was appointed on 01.08.1981 as 'Beldar' on daily wages by the department is alleged to be terminated on 01.06.1984. Against the said termination the workman raised his claim for the first time on 14.01.2005 when he moved an application for reference of his dispute to the Labour Court. Acting upon the application of the workman the dispute was referred by the Government to the Labour Court on 15.05.2006. In the claim petition before the Labour Court, the workman specifically stated that in the year 2003 certain other employees who were at par with him were reinstated in the service by the department and when he came to know about the said fact in the year 2005, he also raised the dispute. Besides the said version it has only been averred that he had been approaching the respondent authorities continuously but no heed was paid to it.

3. Per contra it is the case of the respondent department that the services of the workman were not retrenched but he himself left the job on his own will. A specific objection by the respondent department was raised before the Labour Court pertaining to the delay of more than 20 years caused in raising the dispute by the workman.

4. The learned Labour Court relying upon the ratio as laid down in Kuldeep Singh v. G.M., Instrument Design D & F Center & another; AIR 2011 SC 455 has held that after lapse of 20 years the dispute had become stale and therefore the reference of the same cannot be held to be valid. On basis of the said findings the Labour Court also concluded that had there been illegal retrenchment of the workman, he would have raised the dispute soon after his retrenchment but as he did not do so, it would be concluded that he was gainfully employed and had left the job on his own free will. On basis of the said findings the Labour Court rejected the claim petition of the workman against which the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a dispute had been referred to the Labour Court, the Labour Court was under an obligation to decide the same on merits and could not have rejected the same only on the ground of delay. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Karan Singh v. M/s. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board reported in (2007) 14 SCC 291, wherein it was held that, "If the employer says that the workman has made a stale claim then the employer must challenge the reference by way of writ petition and say that since the claim is belated, there was no industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal cannot strike down the reference on this ground. In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the employer has violated Section 25F. If so, the order of termination is bad in law. It has to be struck down. In the present case, it has been struck down. However, the Tribunal had refused to grant any relief on the ground of delay. The Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the reference, particularly when it has found that the order of termination violates Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

6. Per contra counsel for the respondent submitted that in the present case, the dispute itself was raised by the workman for the first time after a delay of 20 years and no ground or reason for such delay has been given by the workman. So far as the appointment of other similarly situated employees in the year 2003 is concerned, counsel for the respondent stated that the said persons were appointed in pursuance to orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by those employees.

7. Counsel argued that although no limitation has been provided for filing of the claim and reference of the dispute to the