- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Facts giving rise to this petition are that on 7-6-1951, thirty five workmen were dismissed from service. They raised an industrial dispute. State of U. P. vide order dated 23-10-1951 took the view that an industrial dispute in respect of the matters hereinafter specified exists between the concern known as M/s. Athertan West and Company Ltd. , Kanpur and its workmen and whereas in the opinion of the Governor it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of the public order and for main taining employment, referred the dispute- for adjudication to one Shri J. N. Khanna, Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. The reference was as under :- "whether the workers whose names appears at Appendix 'a' were unjustly and wrongfully dismissed by the management ? If so, to what relief are they entitled.
(2.) THIS order of the State of U. P. was challenged in this Court by the Management in Writ Petition No. 7944 of 1951. However, this Court dismissed the writ petition on 5-3-1954. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 10-3-1958. The State of U. P. , however, vide order dated 30-12-1957 with drew its earlier order dated 23-10-1951 referring the dispute for adjudi cation. THIS order became final as the workmen did not challenge the same. In 1987, however, three labour unions, namely, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, U. P. , Sooti Mill Mazdoor Union and U. T. U. , U. P. branch, again raised a dispute about the dismissal of 15 employees on 7-6-1951. It is not disputed that names of these 15 employees were included in the Appendix attached to the order dated 23-10-1951 The State of U. P. C. by order dated 6-4-1991 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. On the bash of the order dated 6-4-1991 the Industrial Tribunal 111, respondent No. 2, regis tered Adjudication Case No. 196 of 1991 and served a notice on the petitioner for the date 10-7- 1991. On receipt of the notice, petitioner filed present writ petition on 9-9-1991 which was admitted the same day and interim order was passed suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 6-4- 1991. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 6-4-1991 on the follow ing grounds :- (1) That the impugned order has been passed after about 40 years and after such a long time, reference could not be made for the stale and dead claim. The order has been passed mechanically and without applying mind. (2) That the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing which was necessary in the facts of the present case as it could entail serious civil consequences. (3) That during this period of 40 years the management changed thrice. Earlier the Company was known as M/s. Atherton West and Company Ltd. and was owned by a British National. Thereafter, it was sold to a private employer. Subsequently, the management was taken over by the National Textile Corpo ration Ltd. That at the time of reference, the alleged workmen were not employees of the petitioner-Company and there could not be any industrial dispute. (4) Lastly, it has been submitted that after such a long lapse of time, it shall not be possible for the management to trace out and bring the record relating to the employment and dismissal in June, 1951 and the management shall suffer irreparable pre judice if such a stale and dead claim is allowed to be adjudi cated.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has sub mitted that it is a settled position of law that the State Government is not under obligation to give any opportunity of hearing to the employer before making a reference to an Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court and the order cannot be said to be illegal on this ground. It has been further submitted that the workmen were agitating about their grievances and they cannot be said to be at fault. The delay has been caused on account of the management. It has been further submitted that when the case of the employees was taken up by the three Labour Unions, the industrial dispute came in existence and the State Government has rightly referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. There is no time limit prescri bed in law for making such a reference and the claim of the workmen could not be termed as stale in the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the learned counsel have relied on certain authorities which shall be referred to and discussed at the relevant time. I have seriously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and, in my opinion, the case involves serious questions to be answered. The first and important question is about the justification and propriety of referring of the dispute after 40 years.;