Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ application, the petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 28th January, 2010 whereby the appropriate Government has declined to make reference for its satisfaction that there is no case for reference to the Labour Court and this fact has been communicated to the petitioner/workman. The petitioner has approached this Court claiming the following relief(s): - - "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be admit and allowed and by an appropriate writ, or order or direction the entire record relating to this case may kindly be called for, and, (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 21.1.2010 (annexure -2) passed by Non -petitioner No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside, (b) by further issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the non -petitioners No. 1 and 2 to refer the statement of claim to the Labour Court concerned for passing the award as per law. Any other relief to which the Hon'ble High Court deemed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may also be granted. The cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised are: That the petitioner, who was engaged as 'Beldar' on daily wages basis with effect from 1st January, 1980, was retrenched on 1st March, 1983, along with many others, without any reason as well as in violation of the mandate of Section 25 -F and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). It is pleaded case of the petitioner that for the first time, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 28th August, 2008, which resulted into a failure report by the Conciliation Officer to the Government on 16th November, 2009. The appropriate Government having considered the report referred to, recorded its satisfaction concluding that there is no case for reference to the Labour Court. The reason(s) recorded, while arriving at the satisfaction for not making a reference, has/have been communicated to the petitioner/workman vide impugned order dated 28th January, 2010; being a stale claim and for delay of 25 years from the alleged date of termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts of the writ application, submitted that the petitioner/workman worked for more than 240 days, in a calender year, under the establishment of non -petitioner number 3 and 4 at several places with effect from 1st January, 1980 to 28th February, 1983, and was retrenched in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F and 25 -G of the Act of 1947. An industrial dispute was raised through Majdoor Union on 28th August, 2008, which ultimately resulted into a failure report by the Conciliation Officer on 16th November, 2009.
(3.) THE learned counsel would further urge that since the provisions of limitation are not attracted to the proceedings under the Act of 1947, therefore, denial of the respondent -State to make a reference on the ground of delay is wholly illegal and calls for judicial intervention by this Court. Moreover, since the appropriate Government is not a Court of law, therefore, the satisfaction arrived at for the alleged inordinate delay is illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional. Furthermore, once the competent authority arrived at the finding of an existence of an industrial dispute, it was incumbent upon the respondent/Government to refer the matter for adjudication. The learned counsel has also alleged violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution citing an illustration of one Jamaluddin's case wherein the industrial dispute was raised after a lapse of 21 years of termination.;