BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) ANAND Kumar Dubey was a permanent ladderman in the Central Railway Loco Shed, kami Junction. He was removed from service from December 12, 1986 for remaining absent from service for about 41 days during 1986. Domestic enquiry was held. However, the claim of the appellant that his absence was due to sickness and death of his mother was not accepted and he was removed from service. He approached his union and the railway Ministers from time to time and was asked to wait for favourable disposal of his case, but nothing was done. These efforts continued till 1997 and when it was found that despite assurances, Officials and Railway ministers were not going to do anything, the appellant was compelled to raise industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, against the railway management before the Regional Labour commissioner, Central, Jabalpur, for conciliation on July 21, 1998.

( 2 ) FURTHER case of the appellant is that the railway management contested the reconciliation proceedings without objection as to delay and produced official records including service sheets of the appellant with respect to enquiry conducted against him. The management declined to reinstate the appellant even without back wages and desired the dispute to be adjudicated through Court.

( 3 ) CONCILIATION proceedings proved failure and report to this effect was sent to the secretary, Government of India, Ministry of labour, New Delhi on March 23, 1999, for adjudication of the dispute. However, by order dated August 31, 1999, the prayer for referring the dispute to Labour Court was rejected on the ground that the same was patently stale. Writ petition No. 4358/1999 was filed challenging this order on various grounds including the ground that no period of limitation is prescribed for raising industrial dispute. However, by order dated October 4, 1999, the writ has been dismissed on the ground that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India. This appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge dated october 4, 1999.

( 4 ) SHRI M. R. Chandra, learned counsel for appellant, submits that decision of respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer of the appellant for making reference to Central government Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside since the prayer for reference cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. Shri S. P. Sinha, learned counsel for respondents, submits that this is an old matter and the proceedings terminated after participation of the appellant in the enquiry. Therefore, learned counsel submits that prayer of the appellant should not be allowed.

( 5 ) DURING the course of hearing, Shri m. R. Chandra brought to our notice the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ajaib singh v. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260. In this case, the services of the workman were terminated by the management without compliance of the mandatory provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute regarding termination of service was referred to Labour Court by the Government on March 19, 1982. By award dated April 16, 1986, reinstatement of the workman with full back wages was ordered. The management challenged the order before the High Court for quashing the award on the ground that the workman approached the Court for grant of relief after prolonged delay. Accepting the plea, the High Court held that the workman was not entitled to any relief for having slept over the matter for seven years and confronted the management with the claim at a belated stage. Judgment of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench. However, the Apex Court, dealing with the question exhaustively and comprehensively, allowed the claim of the workman and held that no limitation was prescribed for raising the demand by the workman for seeking reference and Article 137 of Limitation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document