Ashok Bhan, J.:— This writ petition filed by the Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’), is directed against the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, dated 5th September, 1985, wherein the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of workman with continuity of service but without any monetary benefits.
2. The services of the workman alongwith some other workers were terminated in the year 1973 being surplus. Other workmen challenged their termination and their reinstatement was ordered by the Courts.
3. The present workman made an application on 16th August, 1980, to the appropriate Authority for reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. The appropriate Authority referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’):—
“Whether termination of services of Shri Ajaib Singh, workman, is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?”
4. The Labour Court framed the following issues:—
1. Whether the reference is liable to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections?
2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?
3. Relief.
5. The Labour Court decided all the issues in favour of the respondent-workman but keeping in view the fact that the workman was assisting his father in cultivation from the day his services were terminated held that he would not be entitled to back wages but otherwise he was ordered to be taken back in service with continuity of services.
6. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the services of workman were terminated in 1973; workman sought the reference in August, 1980, and the appropriate Government made the reference to the Labour Court in October, 1980. The reference being belated, the Labour Court should not have entertained it and that the Labour Court has erred in ordering reinstatement of the workman. I do not find any force in this contention. No doubt. It is desirable that there should not be undue delay in making a reference by the appropriate Govt., but delay and laches cannot be made a ground for striking down a reference. The making of reference is an administrative action and the Govt. is the final authority for that. The Labour Court would not enter that arena and refuse to entertain the reference on account of delay. It is duty bound to decide the reference on merits.
7. The delay can be made a ground for refusal of backwages in case the Labour Court orders reinstatement of the workman but in the present case the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement without backwages;. No loss has been caused to management.
8. No other point has been argued before me. I therefore, find no merits in this writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Petition dismissed.