# Tribeni Prasad Patel v. Union of India, through Secretary and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41123 of 1997
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tribeni-prasad-patel-v-union-of-india-through-secretary-and-others-39813
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1All] Tribeni Prasad Patel V. Union of India, through Secretary and others
249
14. The parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41123 of 1997

Tribeni Prasad Patel

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary of
Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya
New Delhi

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri I.N.Singh
Sri Ajay Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.C.
Sri Himanshu Tiwari

Constitution
of
India,
Article
227.
Reference- Rejected on the ground of
delay of 13 years- supporting documents
not
considered-
Rejection
order
quashed- direction issued to decide the
matter on merit.

Held - Para 13

In the light of aforesaid discussions the
order of the respondent no. 4 gives a
firm impression to the court that the
explanation as has been given by the
petitioner vide para 8 of the affidavit
(Annexure-8)
to
the
writ
petition
supported by documents Annexure A to
F)
have
not
been
taken
into
consideration and it appears that in
ignorance thereof just by a casual
observation that he has raised the issue
after a lapse of nearly 13 years without
furnishing any justifiable reason for the
delay' the reference have been refused.
On the facts and circumstances and in
view of aforesaid, I am of the view that
the matter requires fresh consideration
by the respondent no. 4 in respect of the
claim of the petitioner without being
influenced by the observations as made
in this judgement.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1959 SCC 1217
AIR 1970 SC-1205
2000(2) AWC 923

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has prayed for issuance of a
writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the orders dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure-I)
and 22.8.1997 (Annexure-2) to the writ
petition) passed by respondents 2 and 4
respectively.

2. The petitioner claims to have been
appointed as Class IV employee in the
Allahabad
Bank
in
the
district
Bulandshahr on 11.2.1981 on the death of
his father Jagannath Prasad who was a
confirmed Class IV employee in the said
Bank. It has been stated that having
worked for 89 days, without any rhyme or
reason petitioner was asked not to work.
In view of the aforesaid fact petitioner
states that he approached the concerned
authorities from time to time but his claim
for continuance was not considered on
account of which he has to make a
detailed
representation
on
8.5.1995
raising industrial dispute against the
illegal and arbitrary order of termination
of his service. As the petitioner happened
to be a poor person and not being in a
position to contest his case before the
respondent No. 2 he gave authority letter
dated 8.5.1995 authorising the General
Secretary of the U.P. Bank Employees
Union to represent his case and to sign
documents/papers etc. on his behalf. It is
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
250
said that notice was issued in respect to
the petitioner's claim upon which a
counter affidavit was filed by the
respondent No. 3 to which petitioner also
filed rejoinder affidavit on 31.8.1996.
Respondent No. 2 after considering the
facts vide its order dated 31.10.1996
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) rejected
the conciliation proceedings and an
information was sent in this respect to the
appropriate government who by its order
dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ
petition) refused to make reference to the
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the
petitioner's claim on the ground that no
industrial dispute exists and the claim has
been laid by the petitioner after lapse of
13 years. It is these two orders dated
31.10.1996 and 22.8.1997 (Annexures 1
and 2 to the writ petition respectively)
which has made the petitioner aggrieved
to come up before to (sic) court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the pleadings as has
been set forth in this petition and the
material as has been placed on the record.

4. During the course of arguments
both learned counsel joined the issue only
on the ground i.e. the rejection of the
petitioner's claim for reference on the
ground of delay.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently argued that under the Act
no period has been prescribed for
referring the dispute to the Labour Court
and therefore, the rejection of the
petitioner's claim for making reference on
the ground of delay is quite uncalled for.
In the alternative it has been argued that
plausible explanation has been offered on
behalf of the petitioner, explaining the
delay in approaching the respondent No. 2
but the same has not been noticed by the
respondent No. 4 and in a most arbitrary
and cryptic manner the order has been
passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that on the facts of the present
case as the petitioner was engaged to meet
the hardship of family who was starving
on the death of the petitioner's father who
was Class IV employee in the Allahabad
Bank and therefore, petitioner's case was
liable to be considered in sympathetic
manner, on the merits but its rejection on
the technical ground of delay is not at all
justified.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner in support of his contention has
placed reliance on the decision reported in
2000 (5) Supreme, 235 (Sapan Kumar
Pandit Vs U.P. State Electricity Board and
others), AIR 1959 SC 1217 (M/S
Shalimar Works Ltd. V. Their Workmen)
and AIR 1970 SC 1205 (M/S Western
India Watch Co. Ltd. Vs The Western
India Watch Co. Workers Union).

6. Learned counsel who appeared
for the Bank in response to the aforesaid
submissions, argued that on the facts of
the present case it is fully clear that
petitioner has presented his claim after
about 13 years and therefore, the
respondents have rightly refused to make
reference as acceptance of the petitioner's
contention will amount to revive the
matter which has already became stale.
Learned counsel for the respondents in
support of his contention places reliance
on the decision reported in 2000 (2) AWC
923.

7. The question which requires
attention of this Court is that:-

(i) Whether any time (limitation) has
been prescribed for the appropriate
government for referring the dispute
1All] Tribeni Prasad Patel V. Union of India, through Secretary and others
251
or any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to the
dispute to a labour court.

(ii) If time (limitation) is provided, then
whether it can be stretched for any
uncounted number of years, having
no boundary.

8. The question as arises for
consideration,
has
already
been
considered and settled by the decision of
the Apex Court. The survey of cases as
has been relied from both sides, make the
position clear that although no time limit
has been prescribed for the government to
make reference but the use of the words
'at any time' has a significance and that
gives an handle to the government to
make reference at any time, if it feels that
the dispute exists. This exercise makes
obligatory for the government to apply its
mind to explanation given by the
employee, for coming late with the prayer
for reference.

9. After referring to large number of
earlier decisions the Apex Court in case
of Sapan Kumar Pandit (Supra) in
paragraph 15 has observed thus:-

"There are cases in which lapse of
time had caused fading or even eclipse of
the dispute. If nobody had kept the
dispute alive during the long interval it is
reasonably possible to conclude in a
particular case that the dispute ceased to
exist after some time. But when the
dispute
remained
alive
though
not
galvanized by the workmen or the Union
on account of other justified reasons it
does not cause the dispute to wane into to
total eclipse. In this case when the
Government have chosen to refer the
dispute for adjudication under Section 4K
of the U.P. Act the High Court should not
have quashed the reference merely on the
ground of delay. Of course, the long delay
for making the adjudication could be
considered by the adjudicating authorities
while moulding its relief. That is a
different matter altogether. The High
Court has obviously gone wrong in axing
down the order of reference made by the
Government for adjudication. Let the
adjudicatory process reach its legal
culmination."

10. The aforesaid observation of the
Supreme Court clearly casts the duty on
the government to apply its mind and to
consider that whether the dispute ceased
to exist or it may still alive though not
galvanized by the workmen or union on
account of other justifiable reason. It is in
the backdrop of this principle that there is
no limitation prescribed for making
reference but on the facts of each case that
whether workmen has made the dispute
alive or it has become stale, the cases are
to be scrutinized. Now let us examine and
test the decission of respondent on the
aforesaid principle.

11. The petitioner has stated in para
16 of the writ petiton that he has given
full justification for the delay. In this
connection a further reference can be
made to the pleadings as had come before
the respondent No. 2 vide rejoinder
affidavit filed by the petitioner dated
31.8.1996
(Annexure-8
to
the
writ
petiton). Para 8 of the said affidavit reads
like this:-

"The contents of Para 8 are not
admitted and we reiterate that the
petition/claim is very much tenable and
the same cannot be termed as stale claim.
The dispute could be raised at this late
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
252
stage on 8.5.1995 because till that time
the applicant was making representing the
bank's management from time to time and
in
absence
of
their
reply
of
the
correspondence of the bank, I could not
decide the time of action to get the justice
done till the date of raising dispute. Now
having no alternative, I preferred to raise
the dispute before your honour to ensure
justice in the case through your kind
intervention. In support of the above
contention,
Photostat
copies
of
the
representations are annexed as Annexure
'A" to Annexure-'F'"

12. The aforesaid pleadings of the
petitioner makes it clear that he has taken
a definite stand that he has been making
representation after representation to the
Bank management from time to time and
was waiting for its disposal and in the
absence
of
the
reply
of
the
correspondences he was not in a position
to decide the time of action and as large
number of similarly situated employees,
were absorbed and continued he was also
hopeful but as long delay had taken place
he having no alternative preferred to raise
the dispute. In this connection petitioner
had
also
annexed
copies
of
the
representations as annexures A to F along
with his rejoinder affidavit filed before
respondent No. 2. There appears to be no
denial in respect to the fact and detail as
mentioned in para 8 of the affidavit
(which is annexed as Annexure 8 to the
writ
petition),
on
behalf
of
the
respondents either before the respondent
No. 2 or even before this court. Thus the
matter will have to be judged taking the
facts into consideration that the petitioner
has been making representation and have
been approaching the bank management
from time to time. To substantiate this
version he had also appended copy of
correspondences as annexures A to F with
the said affidavit. The order of the
respondent No. 4 dated 22.8.1997 by
which reference has been refused merely
states that petitioner has raised the issue
after a lapse of nearly 13 years without
furnishing any justifiable reason for the
delay. On a reading of this reason as has
been given by respondent No. 4 in his
order it appears that the explanation as
was given by the petitioner, supported
with the documents have not been
analysed and no reason has been assigned
for rejecting the explanation and the stand
of
the
petitioner
about
continuous
approaches to the bank management by
moving representation. There is nothing
on record to show that Bank has denied
the factum of filing of representation as
there appears to be no supplementary
counter affidavit before respondent No. 2
In view of this it appears that respondent
No. 4 have not properly attended the issue
by making the required consideration
which was crucial for forming an opinion
for making reference. The facts as has
come on the record vide para 3 of the writ
petition
that
petitioner
was
given
appointment on the death of his father
who was a Class IV employee in the Bank
has also not been denied by the
respondents which is clear from the reply
as is contained in para 5 of the counter
affidavit. Petitioner has also stated in para
10 and 15 of the writ petition that number
of candidates, similarly situated to the
petitioner and appointed even much after
him, have been absorbed which shows the
pick and choose on the part of the
respondents.
The
petitioner
has
challenged the action of the Bank of not
continuing him, on various grounds as has
been taken before the authorities and also
before this court but as the dispute has not
been referred by the government solely on
1All] Jag Pal Singh Bhatt V. State of U.P. through D.M. and another
253
the ground of delay this court need not to
go into the merits of the petitioner's claim
and his entitlements as it will be
premature. In the light of aforesaid
discussions the order of the respondent
No. 4 gives a firm impression to the court
that the explanation as has been given by
the petitioner vide para 8 of the Affidavit
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition supported
by documents Annexure A to F) have not
been taken into consideration and it
appears that in ignorance thereof just by a
casual observation " that he has raised the
issue after a lapse of nearly 13 years
without furnishing any justifiable reason
for the delay" the reference have been
refused. On the facts and circumstances
and in view of aforesaid, I am of the view
that
the
matter
requires
fresh
consideration by the respondent No. 4 in
respect to the claim of the petitioner
without
being
influenced
by
the
observations as made in this judgment.

14. For the reasons stated above, this
writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Impugned order of the respondent No. 4
dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ
petition) is hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded for a fresh consideration in
accordance with law.

Parties will bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 1, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2002

Jag Pal Singh Bhatt

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through District Magistrate
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Official
accommodations-must
be
vacated
forthwith after transfer or retirementthe petitioner can not continue to occupy
the official accommodation after his
transfer.

Held - Para 4

The petitioner cannot continue to occupy
the official accommodation at Ghaziabad
since he has been transferred from there
he should have by now looked for some
private accommodation at Gautam Budh
Nagar. A large number of petitions have
come
to
this
Court
filed
by
the
Government employees who have not
vacated the official accommodation even
after transfer/retirement. We cannot
approve of this kind of practice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner is Assistant
Manager in District Industries Center and