Point of Law : whether or not the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended in the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Act can be decided by the appropriate Government alone and not by any other authority including competent court of law.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 16.1.2021, passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioners herein to refer the dispute to the Labour Court-cum Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, came to be declined on the ground of delay, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein following main relief(s):-

“(i). Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing the impugned order dated 16.01.2021, 18.02.2021, 19.02.2021 and order dated 20.2.2021 (Annexure P-2 colly) for all intents and purposes.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or directions by directing the respondent No.1 to refer the dispute to Ld. Labour Court for adjudication as done in the other similar situated person’s case”.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the petitioners herein had been working as resin extractor with respondents No.2 and 3 w.e.f. dates, as detailed in para-2 of the petition. Allegedly, in March 2004, the services of the petitioners came to be terminated/ disengaged by the respondents in contravention of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Though, petitioners approached the respondents for re-engagement, but since respondents failed to pay any heed to the request made on behalf of the petitioners, petitioners raised industrial dispute in the year, 2019, which was referred for conciliation proceedings. After failure of conciliation proceedings, matter was referred to Labour Commissioner for referring the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication. However, Deputy Labour Commissioner vide orders dated 16.1.2021, 18.2.2021, 19.2.2021 and 20.2.2021 refused to refer the dispute to Labour Court for adjudication on the ground that the dispute is not in existence on account of delay. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

3. Precise grouse of the petitioners as is highlighted in the petition and has been further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioners is that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh had no occasion/ authority to decline the reference on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that the delay and laches by itself cannot be a ground for refusing to make a Reference. He argued that if a person is guilty of delay and laches, it may be a ground for the Labour Court either to refuse to grant relief or refuse to grant relief of back wages, but definitely Government cannot take up the role of adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference should be made or not.

4. Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment dated 30th March, 2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2190 of 2020 alongwith other connected matters titled as Sh. Jai Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, submitted that the issue sought to be raised in the case at hand is no more res-integra. She argued that as per aforesaid judgment, Government is well within its right to decline to refer the matter to Labour court/Industrial tribunal on the ground of delay and laches.

5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that though in the case at hand, services of the petitioners herein were terminated/disengaged in March, 2004 but yet they chose to approach Labour Court with a request to refer the matter for adjudication to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in the year, 2019 i.e. after inordinate delay of 15 years. Since, there is no explanation, worth credence, ever came to be rendered on record by the petitioners herein qua inordinate d