HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 314 of 2002 v. State of Chhatti^arh aad others1, wherein tlus Court held that pfejudice caused & Ors.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No. 314 of 2002 Respondents: Vei-sus Ravikant Sen Govenunent ofIndia/Bhaiat Sarkar Mjuistiy oflaboiu' and anofher Sin^e Bench: Hou'ble Mr. Justice Satisli K. Agnihotri. Shri S.P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioaer. Shri R.M. Solapurkar, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. O R DE R (Passed on 7th day of necemher, 2006) The followiag order of the Court is passed by Satish K. A^ihotri, J.

#1. The petitioner was appointed departanent teleconimunicatiou under Sub Divisional OiBcer fT.j, Bflaspur from l.4.1986 as casual worker. Service of fhe petitioner was tenninated on lat April, 1988.

#2. Being ssggrieved, the petitioner ffled an appKcation befoie fhe Ceatral Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur on 2.3.1997 (Aiuiexure P/l). The Central Administtative Tribunal, by his oiTier dated 12th -hi3y, 1999 (Annexiirc P/2), dismissRd tTie applicatiou filed by the petitioner, on fhe ground fhat tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertaiu the dispute covered under the ludustrial Disputes Act, 1947.

#3. The petitioner fhereafter raised fbe dispute after a long delay before fhe Goveniment of India, Ministiy of Labour/ respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, by his order dated 11.01.2000 (Annexitre P/3), disinissed the appUcatioa Sled by the petitioiier, held as under;- "The dispute has been rcdsed after a laps of over 11 years withoui anyjustificationfor the long delay. '

#4. The identical issue came into consideration before this Court in fhe case of Ramkumar SwysvassU Vs. State of Chhatti^arh aad others1, wherein tlus Court held that pfejudice caused to ofher side on accoiuit of delay and/or whether the delay was fatal, can be considered oiity ia fhe process of adjiidicatiou before the Labour Court. This case is squarely covered by the decisiou of this Covat in the case of Ranikumar Suiyavanshi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Supra),

#5. In the case of Ajaib Sin^i v. SIrhind CooperatiTe Marketlng- cum-Processiag Service Society Limited and another3, LiiiS :'f?'Kg.';}>-"'SBS»Ua"1- ?J Supreme Coiirt in para. 10 observed thus:- <'10......the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Lunitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under tl.ie Act and that the reliefuader it cannot be deiiied to fhe workman nierely on fhe ground ofdelay. The plea ofdelay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing fhe real prejudice and not as a merely hypofhetical defence. No reference to the Laboiir Court can be geueraBy qiiestioned on thc grouad ofdelay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, ttte Tribunal, Laboiir Court or Board, dealing wifh the case can appropriately mould the reUef by declming to grant back wages to fhe workiuan tiU the date he raised the demand regariiag his illegal retTenchnient/termm.ation or dismissal. The court inay also in appropriate cases direct the payinent ofpart offhe back wages instead offiill back wages....," .S^^SSXSK v^,XSSSSSSSSSSSs S'iWW>sSiSSSSiSSSS31SISI^VS .••-^"^IBil^^lMriacltal.^Gowl^^ amiS^. WifasJkaria^ .'•Ifainataka4. ;. '. ^. •'. • ' . . \:.

#6. Aecordiag^, fhis petitioa M alto^ respondent No. 1 is dira?^ to refer 1^ aispate w^ finirwBeks t6 fhe Ceati^ Goveiiuneut Industriy Tribunal fiw adj^ fhe date c>freceiptofac<3^ofthi^pi<leT.No6riIeras1x)^c^ Bablu Sd/- -SatishK.Agmfiotri ~~^;: :Judge';; "^

#3. "4. {2006L.T.(G(3)135t (1999)83082, (2000) 9 SGC 496 {2003)4SGC27 -%