R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th July, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court, U. P. Varanasi, respondent No. 1, contained in Annexure-17 to the writ petition, and the order dated 3rd July. 1975 passed by the Assistant Regional Manager. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi, respondent No. 4 contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of conductor and to pay his salary accordingly.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was selected on the post of conductor by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). He joined his duties in May. 1974, but all of sudden, an order was passed on 3rd July, 1975, by respondent No. 4 striking off the name of the petitioner from the waiting list. The petitioner made representation to the higher authorities but of no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 17.4.1982, before the Regional Conciliation Officer, Varanasi. He also made an application explaining the delay in making application before him. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.5.1985, the dispute was referred to the labour court. The labour court, order, vide dated 16th July, 1988, declined to make any award in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had raised industrial dispute after a lapse of more than 10 years which is barred by limitation. The labour court further held that the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit under Section 2A of the aforesaid Act as the said section came in the statute book in the year 1978 and it shall not apply in respect of disputes arising before the said section came into force. While holding so, the labour court relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Jagdev Pandey v. Labour Court and others, 1987 (35) FLR 421.
(3.) I have heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.;