The authority of the appropriate Government to refer belated claims for adjudication and the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

S.K. Gangele, J.

The petitioner has filed this petitioner against the award dated 04.07.2014 by which the labour court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 lac in lieu of reinstatement after holding that the termination of the respondent was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (in short "the Act of 1947"). The petition is listed on an application filed by the respondent in regard to non compliance of Section 17 of the Act of 1947 and some of the petitions are listed on admission. The court has issued notices on admission. Looking to the nature of the dispute with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard on admission. The appropriate Government vide order dated 14.7.2005 in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act 1947 referred the dispute to the labour court for adjudication that whether the termination of service of respondent, Smt. Ram Bai was proper or not and what relief she was entitled for.

2. Before the Labour Court the respondent pleaded that she was engaged as labour in the year of 1974 and her services were terminated in the year of 1992 without payment of any retrenchment compensation by an oral order. Before termination of her services, no notice was issued to her neither any enquiry was conducted by the authority. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent did not work for 240 days in a calender year and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable in the establishment of the petitioner. The labour court after appreciation of the evidence has held that the petitioner institute was engaged in regard to search on forests. The trees were planted in the establishment of petitioner and whey were sold also, hence the provisions of I.D. Act were applicable. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the labour court in this regard are in accordance with law. The respondent has specifically pleaded that she was engaged in the year of 1974 and disengaged in the year of 1992 by an oral order and she worked continuously. She also filed an application for production of documents in regard to attendance register of the respondent. The Labour Court vide order dated 9.3.2007 directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents but inspite of that no documents were produced before the labour court. Only photocopies were produced. The witness of the petitioner stated that he can not say that how many days the respondent had worked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the labour court has held that the respondent had worked 240 days in a calendar year and her termination of service was contrary to law.

3. The ground was also taken before the labour court that the dispute was not maintainable because it was raised after a long period of twelve years and that has been negativated by the labour court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no relief can be granted in favour of the respondent because the dispute was raised after a period of twelve years, hence the appropriate Government has committed an illegality in referring the dispute. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this court reported in Dy. C.M.E. Sub Area Manager Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2008) 1 LLJ 312. The Full Bench has answered the reference in the aforesaid case and held as under:

"On the aforesaid analysis of the provisions of Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Act as well as the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, we are of the considered opinion that a belated claim giving rise to an industrial dispute can be referred by the appropriate Government under section 10(1) of the Act if the appropriate Government finds that the industrial dispute exists at the time of making the reference notwithstanding the fact that the claim is belated and such an order passed by the appropriate Government under section 10(1) of the Act cannot be interfered with by the High Cou