The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of delay in making reference, the concept of retrenchment, and the judicial review of administrative orders under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed on account of refusal by the respondents to refer the dispute for adjudication in exercise of is powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 17.1.2001 by which the reference to industrial dispute has been refused by respondent No. 2.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that Kunji Lal, Dev Raj, Kishori Lal, Raj Kumar, Gopi and Mickel were working as Monthly Rated Casual Labour (M.R.C.L.)/Substitute under the Carriage and Wagon Department of respondent No. 3 at Jhansi. They are said to be the members of the petitioner-Union. The Union claims that the aforesaid persons had worked 120 days and have acquired temporary status as M.R.C.L. They were paid as regular wagers and facilities of pass and P.T.Os. were also granted to them. They were sent from one place to another on temporary duty by way of movement order and all the aforesaid persons have got a right to continue in the employment of respondent No. 3. However, the aforesaid persons were retrenched w.e.f. 31.3.1992 while they were entitled to be regularised after screening on 28.2.1992 and 30.3.1992. The names of these five persons were maintained in the Live Register with respondent No. 3.

4. At the instance of the petitioner conciliation proceedings started. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur, submitted failure report on 26th September, 2000 to respondent No. 1. He refused to refer the alleged dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour court vide letter dated 17.1.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) on the ground that the workmen were terminated from service in 1992 and the dispute has been raised in 2000 after a lapse of 8 years without any reason for the delay. In reply the petitioner states that after termination of the services of the workmen they had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Case No. 925 of 1989 which could be disposed of on 10.10.1990 by the Tribunal with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide their representation dated 20.3.1989 within three months. The workmen accordingly submitted the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.1990 to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 having not decided their representation the workmen raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer through the petitioner-union but the Conciliation Officer also refused to make the reference, hence this writ petition.

5. The petitioner contends that refusal to make reference is wholly illegal, arbitrary and perverse and in any view of the matter no limitation having been provided under the Act to raise an industrial dispute, the reference cannot be refused on the ground of delay. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Government is under obligation to refer the existing or apprehended industrial dispute and even after delay the void order of retrenchment cannot be made a valid retrenchment as the law is well-settled on the point that if there is any dispute or apprehension of dispute, the appropriate Government should refer the dispute for adjudication to the labour court or Industrial Tribunal as the case may be to consider the question of delay while granting the relief.

6. In their written statement/ objection filed before the Conciliation Officer the respondents have stated that each of the workmen was casual labourer. The relevant part of the written statement/objection was to the following effect :

“(5) That S/Shri Kunji Lal S/o Shri Harcharan, Devraj S/o Shri Tula Ram, Kishori Lal S/o Shri Har Prasad, Raj Kumar S/o Shri Raghubir, Gopi S/o Shri Heera Lal and Michal S/o Shri Anthoney, have been temporarily put to work as casual labour during mansoon season vide letter No. E/HC/ Water tight, dated 20.6.1990, for certain period and specified work as mentioned in notification No. P/123/CL/1/Cadre-3, dated 19.