- (1.) The Punjab & Sind Bank has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Central Govt./appropriate authority has made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after to be referred as the Act) for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank would submit that the impugned reference has been made in pursuance to a demand notice dated 9.5.2010, issued by workman/respondent no.1 alleging that his services were terminated by the bank w.e.f. 2.2.2002 wrongfully.
(3.) The solitary submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner bank is that the cause of action, if any, had arisen in favour of respondent no.1 workman in the year 2002 itself, whereas the demand notice which has finally culminated in the impugned reference order was raised only in the year 2010 i.e. after a delay of 8 years. It is argued that by virtue of such inordinate and long delay no industrial dispute could have possibly existed and as such the reference should have been declined. In support of such submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Vs. K.P.Madhavankutty and others, 2000 2 SCC 455 . Further reliance has been placed on two decisions passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.9621 of 2010 titled as Smt. Lillo Vs. Government of India and another decided on 24.5.2010 and CWP No.13123 of 2009 titled as Ali Salam Vs. The State of Haryana and another decided on 7.7.2010, wherein the judgement in Nedungadi Bank's case was followed and this Court had declined to interfere in the order of the appropriate govt. in not having made a reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the ground of delay.;