JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition upholding the award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement without any other benefits.
2. The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the office of Sericulture at Ramadurga of Belgaum District. He was taken on duty on 01.04.1984 He worked continuously till 31.03.1985 His services came to be terminated on 01.04.1985 It is in 1998 nearly 13 years after termination, claimant sougnt for a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court. Dispute was referred. He preferred claim petition before Labour Court setting out his claim and contended that his termination was contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as he has worked for 240 days continuously in a year. Appellants filed their statement of objections and contested the claim. They set up a plea of voluntary abandonment from service. They also contended that reference is bad on the ground that as on the date of reference no dispute was in existence. Labour Court framed as many as four issues. Claimant got examined himself and both the parties adduced evidence. On the basis of evidence on record, Labour Court held that claimant has established that he has worked for 240 days during the preceding year of his termination. Section 25F has not been complied with before terminating his services nor he has been paid any retrenchment compensation. It further held that there is no limitation for making a reference. When there is no period prescribed for reference Tribunal held that relief can be moulded appropriately and therefore proceeded to answer the reference in favour of claimant by holding that order of dismissal is bad and accordingly it set aside the order of dismissal. However, considering the fact that there was delay in approaching the Government in seeking reference, claimant has been denied back wages, continuity of service and other consequential reliefs.
3. Aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court, appellants preferred writ petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no limitation prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act for raising a dispute. Reference cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay. As the Labour Court has denied all consequential benefits, it declined to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court which had set aside the order of dismissal and had directed reinstatement. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate assailing the impugned award as well as order of learned Single Judge contended that there is no period of limitation for seeking a reference. It is settled law that conditions precedent for making a reference is existence of a dispute. If by lapse of time, dispute cease to exist then Government has no jurisdiction or power to make a reference of a non-existent dispute. In the instant case, admittedly employee had worked hardly for 240 days. Thereafter his services came to be terminated. He cannot be said to be aggrieved because he voluntarily abandoned his services for which he was terminated. For 13 long years he has not: moved his little finger to challenge the alleged termination nor as on the date he approached the Government that industrial dispute existed. Therefore he submits that the reference is bad. Learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated this aspect of the matter. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The law on the point is well settled and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.. reported in AIR 2007 SOW 2832 has held as under:-
“27. This Court while dealing with Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, has repeatedly held though the Act does not provide a period of limitation for raising of a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), if on account of delay, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. It has also held that lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost or rendered unavailable [vide - Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P Madhavan Kutty [(2000) 2 SCC 455]; Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways [(2001) 1 SCC 133]; Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga. [2002 (1) LLJ 457]; and S.M Nilajkar v. Telecom DT. Manager [(2003) 4 SCC 27)]. When belated claims are considered as stale and non-existing for the purpose of refusing or rejecting a reference under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), inspite of no period of limitation being prescribed, it will be illogical to hold that the amendmem of the Act inserting section 10(4A) prescribing a time-limit of six months, should be interpreted as reviving all stale and dead claims”.
6. In the light of the aforesaid law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court it would emerge that on the day a reference is made, dispute should have existed between the parties. If by lapse of time dispute ceases to exist there is nothing which requires to be referred for adjudication before Labour Court. A stale claim cannot be subject matter of a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In instant case claimant has worked from 01.04.1984 to 31.03.1985 According to him services came to be terminated with effect from 01.04.1985 and for 13 long years he has not taken steps to move the Government for a reference. It is only in 1998 he approached the Government and in 1999 a reference is made. Therefore it is clear that as on the date, reference is made there existed no dispute and it would be a stale claim. In those circumstances Government has no jurisdiction, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, to make a reference. This aspect is missed by both Labour Court and Learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter impugned orders cannot be sustained and accordingly it is set aside. Hence we pass the following:
1. Appeal is allowed in part.
2. Order dated 25.08.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P 13654/2005 as well as award in Ref. No. 50/99 dated 14.08.2002 passed by Labour Court is hereby set aside and reference of the Government is rejected.