- (1.) Aggrieved of the order dated 8th August, 2005, wherein the State-respondents declined to make reference of the industrial dispute raised; the petitioner has instituted the instant writ proceedings praying for the following relief(s):- "(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 8.8.2005 (annexure-2) passed by Govt. Non-petitioner no.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside, (b) by further issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the non-petitioner no.1 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.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are: that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wages basis on 9th May, 1979, and was conferred with the status of 'semi-permanent' on 27th June, 1983. Services of the petitioner along with 30 others, were terminated on 20th August, 1983, preceded by a notice for 24 hours. Jawahar Sagar Bandh Labour Union (for short the 'Labour Union'), preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 1878 of 1983. However, the writ application was withdrawn in view of a settlement arrived at between the parties, including the petitioner, on 30th January, 1991. The petitioner was not accorded reinstatement whereas juniors to her, whose names appeared at serial number 41 and 47, in the order while according the status of 'semi-permanent', were reinstated. An objection was lodged by the petitioner, which remained pending upto 31st December, 1995. Alleging flagrant violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice and for adopting unfair labour practice contrary to the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which resulted into a failure report by the Conciliation Officer. The State-respondents on a consideration of facts and materials available on record, declined the reference for the matter was settled between the parties under a compromise reduced to writing. That apart, the dispute raised earlier, which remained pending upto the year 1995, and the proceedings were dropped on account of non-appearance of the petitioner. Thus, the dispute raised after an inordinate and abnormal delay of more than 10 years, was considered fatal and an inference was drawn for non-existence of any dispute, as would reflected from the order dated 8th August, 2005, of which the petitioner is aggrieved.
(3.) In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed their reply pleading delay and laches. Further, no explanation has been furnished for the inordinate, undue, unexplained and abnormal delay of more than 10 years. According to the respondents, since the matter was settled between the parties in view of the compromise arrived at between the Labour Union and the Management in the year 1991, the matter could not be agitated again by the petitioner by institution of the present writ proceedings, and that too, after an inordinate delay of more than 10 years.;