Delhi High Court
Raj Pal vs The Secretary (Labour) And Anr. on 1 November, 2006
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 21.1.1998 whereby the Secretary(Labour) has refused to refer the dispute as alleged by the petitioner to have arisen. The order of the Secretary (Labour) reads as under:
It is an admitted fact that Shri Raj Pal was called upon to report to Asstt. Director EC(EZ) DDA vide letter dated 19.7.1989. There is nothing on record to suggest that he was not allowed to join duty by the Asstt. Engineer/Jr. Engineer as alleged by him. Assuming that he was not allowed to join as stated by him, a duty was cast on him to approach the higher authorities in the management and failing which to this office. The workman did nothing about it and remained dormant for a period of about 61/2 years. The workman has also failed to justify this inordinate delay in filing this dispute before the Conciliation Officer. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is not a fit case to be sent for adjudication to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
2. The petitioner alleged that he was terminated from services in the year 1989. It is the case of the petitioner that he was called upon to join duty vide letter dated 19.7.1989, however, when he went to join his duties, he was not taken on duty. The petitioner thereafter kept silent for about six and a half years and approached the Labour Commissioner after six and a half years making allegations that he was not allowed to join duty in July, 1989. When he was allegedly refused to join duty, he neither made any complaint to labour authorities nor to any union nor he served any notice upon the employer that he was not allowed to join duty. I consider that where the allegations made by the workman are that he was not allowed to join duty, it is obligatory upon the workman to approach the labour authorities so that labour inspector can approach the management for his joining duty and if there is refusal, same is recorded or he should approach the Conciliation Officer, who may called upon the management to explain the refusal of duty. The Labour Commissioner cannot refer a dispute blindly only on the allegations of the workman without there being any material to support the same. Before a dispute can be referred, he has to ensure about the existence of a genuine dispute. There should be some evidence about termination of services of the workman, either there should be a letter of termination or there should be a report of Labour Inspector that he had accompanied the workman and the workman was not allowed to join. A bare allegation of termination made by the workman after 61/2 years, without there being any other material, would not be sufficient to refer a dispute about termination. The petitioner should have raised a demand of his reinstatement, promptly with the management, by serving a notice. In order to refer dispute, there should be some proof of the workman being employed with the management. I consider that stale/fake or pseudo disputes cannot be referred by the Appropriate Government and the power of referring a dispute must be exercised with caution and care. The dispute must be referred, reflecting the real position and the stand of both the parties.
3. 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 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.
4. In view of reasons stated above, I find no force in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.
