PANWAR, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order Annex. 1 dated 24. 11. 2004 passed by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, holding therein that the Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the reasons that the workman has not worked for 240 days and left the work on his own and the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 20 years without any justification for the long delay, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 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 under the respondents No. 3 and 4 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'the BSNL' hereinafter) in the month of December, 1983 as daily wages labourer and continued to serve the respondent BSNL till 03. 10. 1984 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 workman has not worked for 240 days and left the work on his own and the dispute has been raised after a lapse of 20 years without any justification for the long delay, hence prima-facie the Ministry did not consider the dispute fit for adjudication. 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 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. The learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Amar Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 476/94 decided on 31. 10. 1995. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that the petitioner applied for the reference after a lapse of 20 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 have 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 03. 10. 1984 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. 2 dated 04. 2. 2004 almost after more than 20 years of his termination and a failure report was submitted on 30. 7. 2004. The Division Bench of this Court in Amar Chand vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) held that in performing the administrative functions under Section 12 (5) of the Act, the Government cannot deal into the merit of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis which would certainly be in excess of the powers conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. ;