AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents is present.
It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that the cause of action has arisen on 06.11.1996 when the concerned workman has been dismissed from his service. Against the said dismissal, an Industrial Dispute has been raised on 09.03.2015. Thus, the dispute has been raised after 19 years.
Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr. reported in 2015 (15) SCC 19, Para-28 of the judgment is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"28. The aforesaid case law depicts the following: 28.1. The law of limitation does not apply to the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
28.2. The words "at my time" used in Section 10 would support that there is no period of limitation in making an order of reference.
28.3. At the same time, the appropriate Government has to keep in mind as to whether the dispute is still existing or live dispute and has not become a stale claim and if that is so, the reference can be refused.
28.4. Whether dispute is alive or it has become state/non-existent at the time when the workman approaches the appropriate Government is an aspect which would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule regarding the time for making the order of reference."
Further, counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K. P. Madhavankutty & Ors. reported in 2000 (02) SCC 455, Para-6 of the judgment is relevant which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"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 been 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 lapse of about seven years of 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 reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent."
Be as it may, since nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is, hereby, dismissed for non-appearance.