Hence they filed a writ petition in 1980 before the High Court of Allahabad.
Though the Board filed a special leave petition in this Court it was dismissed in 1989.
The respondent Board filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court assailing the aforesaid reference order and also praying for quashing the adjudication case pending in the Labour Court.
The aggrieved workman has therefore approached this Court challenging the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
This happened on 28.1.1992.
But his application for companydoning the delay for initiating companyciliation proceeding was disallowed by the companyciliation officer.
The Board gave an assurance to the appellant that in the event of any of the claims of the 10 workmen was upheld by the Labour Court the same benefit would be extended to the appellant, numbermatter that he did number take up his cause to any legal forum.
But his services were terminated on 17.7.1975.
According to the appellant he was entertaining the expectation that the Board would extend the same benefit to him.
However, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 10.11.1979 holding that those retrenched persons were entitled to retrenchment companypensation.
When appellant found that this was number done he approached the Conciliation Officer appointed by the State Government.
At the first blush it looks inordinate a delay and so was felt by the High Court of Allahabad which companysequently quashed the reference order passed by the Government solely on the ground of such delay.
The Labour Court took up the reference as Adjudication Case No.158 of 1993.
According to him the High Court should number have bypassed the explanation offered by him as to why the Government did number make a reference earlier.
The Union was number satisfied with the said award.
The said union raised the dispute on 16.9.1976 and the State Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur.
It was in the aforesaid background that the State Government made the reference for adjudication on 29.3.1993.
The State Government by an order dated 29.3.1993 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication as per Section 4.K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for short the U.P. Act Whether termination of the appellant on 17.7.1975 by the employer was proper and legal if so, to what reliefs the workman is entitled?
Accordingly, the order of reference passed by the Government was quashed by the High Court.
Appellant was appointed as a clerk on 1.1.1974 in the Electricity Distribution Division, Mathura of the U.P. State Electricity Board for short the Board .
A period of fifteen years is apparently too long a range, even for a Government to make reference of industrial dispute for adjudication.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
By the time the Industrial Tribunal decided the case of 10 workmen the Board had re absorbed two of them.
He was persisting with his request to the Board that he should be treated on a par with the 8 workmen, some of whom were re employed by the Board.
However, the Deputy Labour Commissioner went to his rescue as the delay was companydoned and the companyciliation proceedings were revived.
He raised an industrial dispute that the termination of his services was illegal.
The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the said writ petition.
