# Ram Chandra Dixit v. Union of India - **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 54 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-12-03 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1670 of 2008 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-dixit-v-union-of-india-41316 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 10Oral termination-after 13 yearsworkman approached before central Government to refer the dispute-refusal by Govt. on ground of inordinate delayheld-proper-case law Ajab Singh relied by the workman-held-no application. Held: Para 6 In the facts of the present case, the Central Government for the reasons 1 All] Ram Chandra Dixit V. Union of India 55 recorded in the order namely that the appellant was a casual worker and has raised the dispute qua his oral termination/disengagement after more than 13 years has rightly refused to make reference. Such an action of the Central Government cannot be said to be illegal, which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Case law discussed: 1999 SCC (L & S) 1054 ## Text 54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 Uma Devi (supra) has been delivered on 10.04.2006 and the regularisation order were issued thereafter hence the appellants decided to revoke the same and it did not give such facts as has been argued before the Court that the regularisation has been obtained by the petitioner on accounts of fraud or misrepresentation etc. and they are not covered by the scheme. 11. Further, before directing for recovery of the amount already paid, again it was incumbent upon the appellants to afford opportunity to the petitioners. The alleged show cause notice filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit nowhere says that such fact was mentioned and the petitioners were directed to show cause against any proposed recovery. In Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2480 the Apex Court clearly held that such orders could not have been passed without affording opportunity of show cause to the concerned employee. 12. In the circumstances while confirming the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge to the extent it has set aside the orders impugned in the writ petitions we make it clear that the other observations of Hon'ble Single Judge may not come in the way of the appellants for passing fresh orders in respect of the petitioners in accordance with law which they may pass after issuing an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioners henceforth giving them opportunity to submit their reply effectively. This exercise shall be completed by the appellants within three months from today. 13. We are informed that during the pendency of this appeal the petitioners were working and discharging their duties with the appellants which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellants. That being so, till fresh orders, as directed above, are passed by the appellants status quo in respect to the continuance of petitioners in service, status and salary shall be maintained. 14. With the aforesaid directions/observations and modifications, all the appeals are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Special Appeal No. 1670 of 2008 Ram Chandra Dixit ...Appellant Versus Union of India ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Addl. Solicitor General of India Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 10Oral termination-after 13 yearsworkman approached before central Government to refer the dispute-refusal by Govt. on ground of inordinate delayheld-proper-case law Ajab Singh relied by the workman-held-no application. Held: Para 6 In the facts of the present case, the Central Government for the reasons 1 All] Ram Chandra Dixit V. Union of India 55 recorded in the order namely that the appellant was a casual worker and has raised the dispute qua his oral termination/disengagement after more than 13 years has rightly refused to make reference. Such an action of the Central Government cannot be said to be illegal, which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Case law discussed: 1999 SCC (L & S) 1054 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 15th October, 2008 whereby the writ petition filed by the present appellant being Writ Petition No.43719 of 2008 has been dismissed. 2. Facts relevant for deciding the present special appeal are; The present appellant claims to have been employed as casual labour in Railways. His engagement as such was put to an end on 9th July, 1987. Such disengagement is stated to have been effected in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant made an application for reengagement before the Management after 12 years, i.e., in the year 1999, which was not considered. He thereafter made an application for conciliation under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The conciliation between the appellant and the employer failed. The Conciliation Officer forwarded the papers to the Central Government for appropriate reference if any. The Central Government by means of the order dated 28th July, 2000 refused to make the reference after recording as follows:- "The dispute has been raised after 13 years without any valid reasons and the workman has also failed to prove that he worked for more than 240 days in the Railway." 3. This order of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India was subjected to challenge by means of the aforesaid writ petition. The writ Court has dismissed the writ petition after being satisfied that in facts of the case the refusal to make reference cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The order of the Hon'ble Single Judge has been subjected to challenge by means of this appeal. 4. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and another reported in 1999 SCC (L & S) 1054 contends that no limitation is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for making a reference and, therefore, it is not within the competence of the Central Government to refuse to make the reference. He further submits that the power to refuse to examine a dispute on the ground of delay is only with the Labour Court and that too when the employer is able to satisfy that some prejudice has been caused to him due to inordinate delay in raising of the dispute. Since in the present case the dispute was never referred, there was no occasion of any such plea being raised before the Labour Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. At the very outset, we may record that the competence of the Central Government to make the reference flows from Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes 56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 Act, 1947. A bare reading of the said section would demonstrate that Central Government has to consider as to whether any dispute exists or is apprehended before making reference. If the Central Government is of the opinion that no dispute exists or is apprehended, it has every right to refuse to make the reference. A dispute may die because of raising of same with inordinate delay as well as for other reasons. It is doubt true that no limitation is provided for raising a dispute, however, from the language of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is apparently clear that only if an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, that reference is to be made. Therefore, existence of a dispute or apprehension thereof is a condition precedent for any reference being made. In the facts of the present case, the Central Government for the reasons recorded in the order namely that the appellant was a casual worker and has raised the dispute qua his oral termination/disengagement after more than 13 years has rightly refused to make reference. Such an action of the Central Government cannot be said to be illegal, which may warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was considering a case where the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India upset an award of the Labour Court on the ground that there was inordinate delay in making of the reference qua the dispute. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since no limitation is provided for making a reference and, in facts of the case reference was made, it is only for the Labour Court to mould the relief if there was any delay in raising of the dispute. It has been held that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award made by the Labour Court on the ground of delay in reference. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. The Special appeal is dismissed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J. THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. First Appeal From Order No.3775 of 2008 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Kanchan Pandey & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ashok K. Jaiswal Counsel for the Respondents: Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section 170 and 173-Appeal against order-rejecting application to contest the case passed under section 170 can be challenged only under supervisory jurisdiction under Act 227-not under section 173-in absence of award. Held: Para 10 & 21 From the aforesaid decisions it is clear that the insurance company can file appeal under section 173(1) on all the