Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Its Section ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 10523 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Its Section ... on 19 November, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          W.P.(L) No. 5248 of 2019

        Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union through its Secretary, Sri D. Mukherjee.
                                                     ...     ...     Petitioner
                                  Versus
        Union of India through its Section Officer and Another.
                                               ...        ...       Respondents
                                  ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

        For the Petitioner        : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
        For the UOI               : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC
        For the Resp. No. 2       : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
                                  ---

     25/19.11.2024

1. The learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the impugned order, the dispute regarding dismissal of the concerned workman has been refused to be referred for adjudication by labour court through reference. He has submitted that mere delay cannot be a ground to refuse the reference. He has relied upon judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(L) No. 5260 of 2019 dated 13th March, 2024.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that after 12 years, the dispute was sought to be raised and there was no explanation for such delay. She has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 para 6 and 7 and in (2015) 15 SCC 1 paragraphs 12, 42, 44 and 45.

4. She has submitted the judgment passed in W.P.(L) 5260 of 2019 does not apply to the facts of the present case as in the said judgment the dispute which was sought to be referred was regarding the grant of compassionate appointment and that the termination letter was never served upon the deceased father of the applicant.

5. In response the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001)

6 SCC 222 paragraph 8, 9, 13 and 15 to submit that in the said case delay was about 15 years. He has further submitted that the length of delay will not decide as to whether the dispute was existing or not.

6. Post this case on 21st November, 2024 at 2:15 PM for further hearing.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-