IMPORTANT POINT
In a case of delayed reference of industrial dispute it is for workman to show that dispute was raised within a reasonable time and that he was not responsible for delay.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

The respondent was appointed on purely temporary basis in the year 1980 to meet the urgent needs during the Khumbh Festival. It was clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that service of the respondent, as well as the similar situated persons, was purely of temporary nature and can be terminated at any time without prior intimation. The respondent was engaged from time to time to meet the need for specific time bound work. As there was no further need for engaging the respondent and others, their services were terminated by order dated 19.9.1983. By order dated 29.8.1998 the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred following dispute for adjudication under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act):

"Whether termination of service/retrenchment of workman Sh. Baburam, S/o Nathhu Singh, Chawkidar by his employers w.e.f. 19.09.1983 is legal and/or valid? If not, then to what relief/compensation the concerned workman is entitled?"

3. By order dated 11.11.2002 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad, Rampur held that the termination/retrenchment of the respondent w.e.f. 19.9.1983 was illegal and invalid. Consequently the Labour Court directed that respondent should be reinstated with continuity of service and be paid back wages and other benefits.

4. One of the contentions of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the reference was based on a belated claim. There was no specific finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard. A writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant submitted that the respondent has not offered any explanation for the belated claim raised after 15 years in view of the fact that the grievance of the respondent was raised in the conciliation proceedings initiated in 1998. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal re-iterated the contentions urged before the High Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the delay of about 15 years has been condoned by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. It cannot therefore be said that there was any delay.

7. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on facts of each individual case.

8. However, certain observations made by this Court need to be noted. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. (2000 (2) SCC 455) it was noted at paragraph 6 as follows:

"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since heel) settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were rein