AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharati Sapru, J.—Pleadings have been exchanged. Learned Counsel for both sides are present. Matter is being decided at the stage of admission itself. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of reference dated 7.5.2009 arising out of C.P. Case No. 4 of 2008.
The facts or the case are that the petitioner M/s. Areva T & D India Limited, Naini, Allahabad is a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It was formerly known as M/s. GEC Alsthom India Limited.
The petitioner company states that it received a notice dated 5.2.2008 from the Conciliation Officer that a dispute has been raised by the respondent No. 5 who claim to be a workman with the petitioner company.
The C.P. case was registered as Case No. 4 of 2008. The application filed by the workman is on record. The application was filed by the workman u/s 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 along with a delay condonation application. The application filed by the respondent workman reflects that she had worked with the petitioner company in the year 1982 and was terminated with effect from 1.1.1984.
The workman has also filed a delay condonation application in which allegations have been made that during the period of 1984 to 2008 she was representing to the Company with regard to the termination of her service. However, the application filed by the workman did not enclose any evidence to establish it.
The delay condonation application was allowed despite resistance of the Company that the claim was stale one and should not have been allowed.
I have heard learned Counsel on both sides and perused the records.
The Conciliation Officer has passed an order on 31.7.2008 condoning the delay. No good reason has been given by the Conciliation Officer for condoning the delay and in fact the order itself does not reflect that there was any material before the Conciliation to substantially explain the reason for delay and consequently, the order passed by the Conciliation Officer condoning the delay is without any good reason.
The Hon''ble Apex Court has consistently held that stale claim should not be referred unless there is good reason to condone the delay. In this case there is a delay of approximately 25 years. There is no doubt that the statute does not prescribe any period for invoking the right to get a reference made but nevertheless if the right is to be invoked then it must be done within a reasonable period. It cannot be said that 25 years would qualify as a reasonable period to raise such a claim. In fact, it is too long period. In view of the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, , Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, (2002) 1 LLJ 457SC and the State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Ravi Kumar, .
I am of the firm opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case also do not reflect any good reason to condone the delay of 25 years. The workman had not even given a plausible explanation for condoning the delay. Consequently, the reference made after 25 years is bad in law and is liable to be quashed by this Court. This writ petition is allowed. The reference dated 7.5.2009 is quashed. All proceedings in Adjudication Case No. 15 of 2009 was brought to an end. No order as to costs.