- (1.)APPELLANT is aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge dated 9-7-1999, agreeing with the decision of the respondents in declining to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
(2.)APPELLANT was sweeper in the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. He was appointed on compassionate ground after the death of his father. He was terminated from service on 23-8-1993. He raised industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Conciliation proceedings met with failure and failure report submitted to the appropriate Government which by order dated 27-1-1999, declined to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication for the following reasons:--
"the dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 5 years without any justifiable reason for the long delay. "
Appellant challenged this order stating that no limitation is prescribed for raising the dispute. Even otherwise, this question is to be decided by Court of competent jurisdiction. The Government did not afford opportunity to the appellant before declining to make a reference. However, learned Single Judge rejected the petition and upheld the order of respondents in not making the reference:
(3.)SHRI Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that learned Single Judge committed an error in deciding the petition without examining the question whether Government order declining to make reference was erroneous on the ground that claim for making reference was not barred by time and order was passed without proper application of mind to the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in case of Anand Kumar Dubey v. Union of India and Ors. , 2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 431 (DB), which holds that no limitation is prescribed for raising demand by a workman for seeking reference and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable and that the plea of delay by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing real prejudice by the employer and not by way of hypothetical defence. Claim of the workman cannot be rejected being stale or opposed to the provisions of the Act or inconsistent with any agreement between the parties or patently frivolous. For taking this view, reliance was placed on Apex Court decision in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. , (1999) 4 SLR 109.