Ram Khiladi Vs. State

constitution of india - article 226--labour department refused to refer the case of termination of service to a competent court--the ground of refusal was delay in making the request--held, there are a number of disputed questions of facts and law, which can only be decided by a competent court--case be sent to the court and the question of delay will be considered by it also.;writ allowed. - - 4. this court as well as the apex court, at number of occasions have made serious observations on the manner in which the department deals with such matters in refusing to raise the dispute to a competent court for adjudication.a.k. parihar, j.1. petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.09.1996 passed by labour department, government of rajasthan, refusing to refer the dispute of termination of services of petitioner to a competent court for adjudication. the only ground for non-reference is delay in raising the dispute.2. the petitioner had worked with the respondents from 1967 till 1986. however, his services were terminated without compliance of mandatory provisions of the industrial disputes act.3. after having gone through writ petition and the dispute raised before conciliation officer. i find that there are so many disputed questions of facts and law, which can only be decided by a competent court after taking evidence of both sides. the same cannot be decided by just administrative orders.4. this court as well as the apex court, at number of occasions have made serious observations on the manner in which the department deals with such matters in refusing to raise the dispute to a competent court for adjudication. so far as delay is concerned, that can also be taken note by the competent court and that is also relevant only for the purpose of relief, if any, to be given to the concerned workman. there is no limitation prescribed under the act and a person has a right to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the court.5. since the matter of termination has yet to be decided by a competent court after taking evidence of both sides, no purpose would be served by issuing notices of the writ petition to the respondents.6. accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. respondent no. 2 is directed to refer the dispute of termination of services of the petitioner to a competent court within thirty days from the day of receipt of certified copy of this order.