Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1527
2003 (3) AWC 1727
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Anjani Kumar, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 27462 of 1995
Decided on October 23, 2002
Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Jhansi
Versus
Mohd. Yaqoob and another
Counsel for the Petitioner: Rajiv Sharma, Rahul Anand Gaur, S.C.
Counsel for the Respondents: A. M. Zaidi and M. H. Khan.
Once the referring authority is satisfied that there exists an industrial dispute, it cannot be gainsaid that the matter is delayed or raised with inordinate delay.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Labour Dispute - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, which accepted the application for referring the dispute to the proper labour court/industrial Tribunal and condoned the delay in filing the application. The court relied on the principle that once the referring authority is satisfied that there exists an industrial dispute, it cannot be gainsaid that the matter is delayed or raised with inordinate delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-employer challenged the order of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, which accepted the application for referring the dispute to the proper labour court/industrial Tribunal and condoned the delay in filing the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the matter deserves to be dismissed at this stage, but the petitioner can raise objections when the dispute is referred to the proper labour court.
Issues: Challenge to the order of the Dy. Labour Commissioner, delay condonation, and reference of the dispute to the proper labour court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that once the referring authority is satisfied that there exists an industrial dispute, it cannot be gainsaid that the matter is delayed or raised with inordinate delay.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, and any interim order stands vacated.
Anjani Kumar, J.—Perused the office report dated 7.10.2002. The attested true copy of the stay vacation application along with counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri M. H. Khan. The said stay vacation application along with counter-affidavit is accepted on record and treated as original.
2. The petitioner-employer has challenged the order dated 31.7.1995 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner, whereby he has accepted the application for referring the dispute to the proper labour court/industrial Tribunal and also condoned the delay in fling the application. It is this order which is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Dy. Labour Commissioner who has passed the aforesaid order has acted in utter disregard of law in condoning the delay and making reference. It would not be out of place to mention that because of interim order of this Court in spite of order dated 31.7.1995, the matter has yet not been referred to the proper labour court. In a recent decision in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U. P. State Electricity Board and others, 2001 (3) AWC 2342 (SC) : 2001 (90) FLR 754 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held that once the referring authority is satisfied that there exists an industrial dispute, it cannot be gainsaid that the matter is delayed or raised with inordinate delay.
4. In this view of the matter, at this stage this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to raise objection as and when the dispute is referred to the proper labour court to demonstrate that this case is covered by exception carved out with the aforesaid Sapan Kumar Pandit’s case.
5. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
