AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 1.2.1999 as well as order dated
7.9.1999 passed by Secretary (Labour). By the order dated 1.2.1999, Secretary (Labour) observed that the petitioner had approached with a
claim of Industrial Dispute after 07 years 11 months and 22 days of the cause of action. There was no justification given by the petitioner for such a
delay in raising the claim. It was not a fit case for reference. The petitioner filed a review against the order dated 1.2.1999. The review was
dismissed by the Secretary Labour vide order dated 7.9.1999 observing that there was no ground for reviewing the earlier order.
The present writ petition, challenging the order dated 1.2.1999 has been filed by the petitioner before this Court in February, 2005 i.e. after
about six years.
I consider that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches. No reason has been given by the petitioner for not
preferring a writ petition for such a long time. In Jharkhand Mazdoor Sangh v. Presiding Officer 2002(10) SSC 703, the writ petition was filed
with a delay of five years and the ground taken before the Supreme Court was that due to illiteracy and illness of the Secretary of Union, the writ
petition could not be filed in time. Supreme Court observed that illiteracy and illness were not of such nature so as to prevent the union from filing
the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition on ground of delay and latches. I consider that the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed
on the ground of delay and latches.
Despite the fact that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as stated above, it would be appropriate to observe that Secretary (Labour) was
not wrong in refusing to refer the dispute which was raised by the petitioner after about 08 years of the cause of action. A stale dispute is no
dispute in the eyes of law. Though there is no period of limitation provided under the Industrial Dispute Act for raising a dispute, but the I.D. Act
was enacted by Parliament to maintain industrial peace and harmony. If a person is aggrieved by any action of management, he must take recourse
to available avenues under Labour Laws in a reasonable time. Once he allows the dispute to die down by not raising it for years, no industrial
dispute remains to be referred.
It is settled law that stale dispute is no dispute. In the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. 2000 (1) SLR 636, the
Supreme Court held:
Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.
I find no force in the writ petition, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.