1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.845  OF 2009       (arising out of SLP(C)No.20453 of 2007)

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.        ... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

RAVI KUMAR   ... RESPONDENT  

O R D E R

Leave granted.  Heard the learned counsel.

The respondent claims that he was appointed as a cleaner on daily wage

basis on 26.10.1979 in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, MLB Canal

Ramdurg  Sub-Divison.  According  to  him  he  continued  as  a  daily  wager  till

14.11.1984 when his services were dis-continued without any written order.  

The respondent did not protest nor challenge the alleged termination. After

14 years he filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a declaration that his

termination from service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947('Act' for short) and for re-instatement as a cleaner with back wages from the

date of his termination till date of reinstatement with continuity of service and other

consequential benefits.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated

16.3.1998 dismissed the  writ petition as not maintainable, with an observation that the

respondent  may  give  a  representation  to  the  State  Government  and  the  State

2

Government may consider whether the dispute should be referred under Section 10(1)

(c) of the Act.  

Taking advantage of the said observation, respondent sought reference and

the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Hubli.  The respondent

filed  a claim before the Labour Court reiterating the reliefs  claimed in the writ

petition. The State Government was not a party before the Labour Court. The Asstt.

Executive  Engineer who  was  the  sole  respondent  inter alia contended  that  the

reference was stale having been made after 14 to 15 years and denied that respondent

had served in his office. The Labour Court rejected the reference by its award dated

30.07.2001. The said award has been set aside by the High Court in a writ petition

filed by the respondent,  by  order dated 23.03.2006 with a direction to the State

Government and the Asstt.  Executive Engineer to reinstate the respondent without

any back wages. The said order is under challenge in this appeal by special leave.

This Court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred -

vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P.  Madhavankutty and others - 2000(2) SCC 455

and Assistant Executive Engineer,Karnataka vs. Shivalinga-2002(10)SCC 167.  We

may also refer to the  decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. K.T.

Rolling Mills – 1995 (1) SCC 181 wherein this Court observed that when a power is

conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked,

the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised

reasonably, and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of

reasonableness.

3

In this case the respondent did not choose to challenge the termination for

14 years. Merely because some other daily wagers had got some relief, he belatedly

approached  the  High  Court  in  1998.  The  writ  petition  was  dismissed  with  an

observation  that  the  respondent  was  at  liberty  to  make an  application  seeking

reference. The contention of the respondent that reference was made on the direction

of the High Court is not therefore correct. As the reference was stale, it ought to have

been rejected on that ground alone. It is not possible to expect the Asstt. Executive to

prove after 14 years that the daily wager did not work or that he did not work for 240

days in a year or that the daily wager voluntarily left the work. Further when the

State Government was not a party before the Labour Court, the respondent could not

implead the State Government as a party in the writ petition challenging the award,

nor can the High Court grant any relief against the State Government.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the

High Court and restore the order of  dismissal by the Labour Court,  though on

different grounds.

............................J.          ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN  )

   ............................J.          ( MARKANDEY KATJU )

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 10, 2009.