ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner – Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.04.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (I.T.) No.45 of 2010.

The prayers sought for is as under;

“A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B) Be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of Reference (I.T) No.45/2010, Industrial Tribunal, Bhavanagar and after perusing it propriety and legality, be plased to quash and set aside the award dated 30/04/2019 passed in Refernece (I.T) No.45/2010, Industrial Tribunal, Bhavanagar below Ex.28.

C) Pending admission till final disposal of this petition; be pleased to grant ad interim relief in terms of staying further operation, execution and/or implementation of the award dated 30/04/2019 passed in Reference (I.T) No.45/2010, Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar below Ex.28.

D) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. It can be noted that Reference (I.T.) No.45/2010 has been preferred by the respondent in which the trial Court has quashed and set aside the departmental proceedings vide order dated 30.04.2019 and directed the petitioner to revise the pay scale of the respondent within 30 days with Rs.3000/- cost.

3. It is pertinent to note that respondent has challenged the validity of departmental inquiry by way of an application at Exh.11. However, petitioner by way of an affidavit at Exh.18 disclosed that the record has not been traced out and thereby cannot be produced. In view of such disclosure and in view of non – availability of record, such application at Exh.11 was allowed vide order dated 28.12.2017. Such order was not separately challenged by the department before this Court nor before any other authority. Therefore, subsequent reference which resulted into quashing and setting aside the punishment awarded under the departmental proceedings when is questioned, it has been urged by the learned advocate that the Court ought to have taken into consideration the factum of delay which since is not being considered, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. The trial Court has referred a decision of the Apex Court in case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1.

4. This Court notices that the department’s First Appeal is decided in the year 2007, whereas reference was preferred in the year 2010. Thus there is delay of 3 years in preferring reference. However, under the labour law, there is no prescribed time period to raise the dispute and the trial Court has given substantial reasonings for its satisfaction. Moreover, this is only consequential order and when departmental proceedings was not found to be substantiated, the order of punishment needs to be quashed and set aside by the labour Court. It has committed no error in quashing such order. Therefore, present petition is rejected in limine.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

DRASHTI K. SHUKLA