PANWAR, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order Annex. 3 dated 10. 3. 2004 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, holding therein that the dispute was discontinued from the services by the Management during the year 1986 and the dispute has been raised belatedly after a gap of 16 years without any valid reasons for the delay, hence the dispute has, prima facie, no merit, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent bank on 19. 8. 1981 on daily wages basis as peon and continued to serve the respondent bank i. e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur for short 'sbbj' hereinafter) till 25. 5. 1986 when his services were terminated. The petitioner requested the Appropriate Govt. of India to make a reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal for illegally terminating his services. The respondent Union of India instead of making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act' hereinafter) held that the dispute has been raised belatedly after a gap of 16 years without any valid reasons for the delay, hence the dispute has, prima facie, no merit. A reply to writ petition has been filed by respondents wherein respondents have contended that Appropriate Govt. was justified in not making such a belated reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Bharos Kharwad vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. RLR 2006 (1) 658 and two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another 1999 SCC (L&s) 1054 and Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U. P. State Electricity Board and Others 2001 SCC (L&s) 946 and contended that there is no period of limitation prescribed for making reference under Section 10 of the ID Act and therefore, it was not open for the respondent to decline to make the reference. It was also contended that what was required to be seen by the respondent is as to whether the industrial dispute is in existence on the date of reference for adjudication and if the answer is positive, the Govt. ought to have exercised the power whatever be the length of period which elapsed since inception of the dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the petitioner applied for the reference after a lapse of 16 years since termination of his services and therefore, the Appropriate Govt. was justified in not making the reference to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on decisions of this Court in Rajendra Singh Gehlot vs. Union of India and Others 2000 (1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 423 and Satyanarain Sharma vs. Union of India and Others 2003 (1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 357 and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K. P. Madhavankutty and Others (2000) 2 SCC 455, Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Others (2000) 3 SCC 93 and Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the services of the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition were terminated on 25. 5. 1986 and the petitioner approached the respondent i. e. Govt. of India for making reference for adjudication to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act vide Annex. 1 dated 27. 12. 2002 almost after more than 16 years of his termination and a failure report was submitted on 19. 9. 2003. The Division Bench of this Court in Ram Bharos Kharwad vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) held that the dispute does not cease to exist and reference ought not to have been declined merely on the ground of delay. ;