The appropriate Government must assess the existence of an industrial dispute and cannot refuse reference solely based on delay; delay is a relevant factor but does not automatically negate the power to refer.

Order :

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 26.09.2008 passed by the appropriate Government by which the dispute has not been referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on its merit on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate Government cannot act as an Adjudicating Authority and going be- yond the domain of function, the order impugned has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the con- troversy involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Gopiram Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11575/2019 on 17.08.2023. Counsel submits that the instant writ petition be disposed of in the light of the same direction as issued in the case of Gopiram Yadav (Supra).

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the dispute was raised by the petitioner after a lapse of 25 years, hence, the authority concerned has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that appropriate Government has refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on a technical count that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 25 years.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal and the appropriate Government cannot act as an Adjudicating Authority. The issue involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in the case of Gopiram Yadav (Supra) and it has been held in para 24, 25, 26 and 27 which reads as under:-

24. The Supreme Court in Krisihi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Manglor vs. Pahal Singh, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 193 was dealing with a case where industrial dispute had been raised 18 years after the date of retrenchment. The Labour Court declared the termination of the services by the management as illegal and directed reinstatement of the work- man with continuity of service and backwages. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court is under an obligation to consider as to whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. The Supreme Court held that it is well settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". It was further held that the Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised judiciously. A relief of reinstate- ment with all back wages is not to be given without considering the relevant factors therefore, only be- cause it would be lawful to do so. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.

25. In State of Karnataka & anr. vs. Ravi Ku- mar, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 746, the Supreme Court held that delay of 14 years in seek- ing reference and challenging the order of termina- tion was fatal because the person supervising could be expected to prove after 14 years that the re- spondent did not work or that he did not work for 240 days in a year or that he voluntarily left the work. Since the reference was stale, it ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. Holding thus, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the award of the Labour Court which rejected the reference.

26. In Rahaman Industries Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2016)12 SCC 420, challenge before the Supreme Court was made to the order of the High Court giving peremptory direction to the appropriate Govern- ment to refer the dispute raised by the workmen for adjudication. It was argued that the order of the