Madhav Lal vs Chairman, Mewar Anchlik Gramin Bank and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the order dt. 04.12.2012 whereby the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ petition (CWP No. 11956/2012) filed by the appellant on his grievance against denial of reference by the appropriate Government by the order dt. 29.01.1996. The writ petition leading to this intra-Court appeal was filed in the year 2012. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the order dt. 29.01.1996 only on the ground of inordinate delay, of about 16 years, in approaching the Court, while observing as under:--

True it is. Industrial Disputes Act nowhere prescribes any limitation for raising an industrial dispute, but if an industrial dispute suffers from inordinate delay, then there should be some justifiable reason. In the instant matter, no reason is given by the petitioner for causing a huge delay of about nine years in raising the industrial dispute. Be that as it may, the appropriate government refused to make reference much back in the year 1996 and that is questioned by this petition for writ in the year 2012. The writ petition, as such, suffers from a huge delay of 16 years. No reason is given for causing such delay. So far as the argument with regard to the fresh proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner is concerned, suffice to mention that once the appropriate government refused to refer an industrial dispute for its adjudication, no reason exists for undertaking fresh exercise of conciliation and negotiations proceedings. Suffice to mention that raising of fresh dispute too suffers from inordinate delay without having any justifiable reason.

The writ petition, as such, is bereft of any merit, hence, dismissed.

The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another, and Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Borad and Others, to submit that the relief could not have been denied to the appellant only on the ground of delay.

We are afraid, the decisions as referred by the learned counsel are not of help to the appellant; and there appears no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Admitted position remains that the appellant alleged his appointment with Mewar Anchlik Gramin Bank at Branch Padasali, District Rajsamand and alleged his retrenchment on 19.04.1986. An industrial dispute was sought to be raised by him before the Labour Enforcement Officer on 02.05.1994. The appropriate Government, by its order dt. 29.01.1996, refused to refer the dispute for its adjudication because of the same having been raised at a belated stage. The appellant, thereafter, again raised the dispute before the Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, Udaipur in the year 2010 and then, approached this Court in the writ jurisdiction alleging want of proceedings by the Conciliation Officer.

The learned Single Judge found no reason to entertain the writ petition so filed in the year 2012 particularly when the appropriate Government had refused to make the reference way back in the year 1996 and the petition suffered from an inordinate delay of 16 years. The writ jurisdiction being discretionary, declining of discretion in this matter by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity.

It may be noticed that in the case of Kuldeep Singh, the Hon''ble Supreme Court essentially observed that once a reference had been made by the appropriate government, the Court cannot go behind the order of reference; and held denial of relief to the workman on the ground of delay in making reference to be improper. Even therein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed that it is only reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen; and if sufficient materials are not put forth for the enormous delay, it would certainly be fatal. Sapan Kumar Pandit''s case had been of yet another different fact situation where a reference made by the State Government was interfered with by the High Court on the ground of delay in making of the reference. The position in the present matter is that the appropriate Government had refused to make the reference way back in the year 1996 and the appellant attempted to question such refusal by way of the writ petition only in the year 2012. In our view, the learned Single Judge has been justified in declining to entertain the grossly belated petition filed by the appellant.

The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.