Kamlesh Babu vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1831 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 313 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Kamlesh Babu
 
Respondent :- Union of India
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-respondent and Anju Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent - petitioner.

This special Appeal has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 17.11.2021 in Writ C No.41557 of 2016 (Union of India Vs. Kamlesh Babu), passed by the learned Single Judge.

As per own case of the appellant - respondent, he was a casual worker and was disengaged on 14.09.1991. However, according to the respondent - petitioner, appellant herein was engaged for a period of 120 days in the year 1984. After decades a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, at the instance of the appellant herein. In paragraphs 15 & 16 of the writ petition the respondent -petitioner has stated as under:

"That admittedly, the respondent has not discharged any duty after 1991 and under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government is empowered to make reference under Section 10 of the Act only when "industrial dispute exists" or "is apprehended between the parties". In the present case, admittedly, according to the respondent himself he was retrenched in 1991 long back prior to making of the reference and as such there was no industrial dispute though existed or apprehended in relation to the respondent. Since the services of the respondent were terminated/retrenched (whether rightly or wrongly) long back, the question of their absorption or reinstatement in the service did not arise.

16. That admittedly after a long gap, the records of the department were weeded Out and only document relied upon by the tribunal is certificate issued by the P. W. I. in the year 1991 that the respondent was engaged as Casual Labour of more 120 days in the calendar year 1984 only, this could not be read in support of the contention of the respondent that he continuously worked and he got the temporary status automatically."

Thus, it is admitted case that the reference was highly belated and without any acceptable explanation for delay. Consequently, by the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2021, the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned award dated 17.11.2015 holding that on account of the delayed reference, the impugned award dated 17.11.2015 is vitiated and unsustainable in law. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned single judge has considered the facts of the case as well as the legal position and thereafter came to the aforesaid conclusion in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgments.

For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Special Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 29.4.2022/vkg