(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9141/2012 Ranveer Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :
09. 01.2013 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.C. Joshi for the petitioner BY THE COURT : The appropriate government under its communication dated 24.08.2006 conveyed the petitioner that the industrial dispute raised by him cannot be referred for its adjudication in view of the fact that the same was earlier raised in the year 1990 and was not referred for adjudication. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. From perusal of the facts averred in the writ petition, it appears that in the year 1989 the petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this court and that came to be disposed of with a direction to avail remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). No effort then was made by the petitioner to agitate his cause by availing remedy under the Act of 1947. Subsequent thereto in the year 2005, he raised an industrial dispute and that has been denied to (2) be referred for adjudication vide communication dated 24.08.2006. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier dispute was raised by a trade union and not in individual capacity, therefore, the petitioner is having all authority to raise the dispute afresh. In alternative, it is submitted that the petitioner after disposal of the writ petition failed to raise the dispute being suffered an accident, thus, he should have been allowed to do so. I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. The dispute that is now sought to be agitated relates to the year 1988. The petitioner was directed by this court much back in the year 1989 to avail remedy under the Act of 1947, but he failed to do so. Ultimately he chose to raise the dispute in the year 2005, i.e. after a lapse of about 17 years from the date the cause came into effect. No sufficient reason is given for causing such inordinate delay. Be that as it may, the communication impugned too is dated 24.09.2006 and no care was taken by the petitioner to challenge the same for good six years. This petition for writ was filed on 28.08.2012. No reason is given for causing this delay too. In view of the factual position noticed above, I am not at all inclined to interfere in the matter at this belated stage. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. [GOVIND MATHUR],J.
Pramod