2025:JHHC:38271 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.7528 of 2025 ----- Usha Devi, aged about 44 years, widow of Late Manoj Bhuiya, resident of Loyabad 3, P.O & P.S. Bansjora, District- Dhanbad; … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Union of India through Ministry of Labour & Employment, "Shram Shakti Bhawan", Rafi Marg, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Refi Marg, New Delhi-110001; 2. Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, "Shram Shakti Bhawan", Rafi Marg, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Refi Marg, New Delhi-110001; 3. Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, "Shram Shakti Bhawan", Rafi Marg, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S.-Refi Marg, New Delhi-110001; 4. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad; 5. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Ltd, through chairman-cum-managing Director, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, "Koyla Bhawan", Koyla Nagar, P.O.-Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad; … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate …...... 02 /18.12.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed to give a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to refer the dispute under section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court. 3. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 03.12.2002 on the post of Miner Loader at Tetulmari Colliery. On 18.04.2005 a notice was issued upon him asking him to explain about his unauthorised absence and thereafter an enquiry was set-up and finally he was dismissed sometime in the year 2006. The husband of the petitioner made representation dated 27.05.2006 before the Chief General Manager against the order 2025:JHHC:38271 2 of dismissal. He also made an appeal before the Chairman cum Managing Director on 29.07.2008 with a request to consider his case for reinstatement. Unfortunately he died on 13.06.2014. After his death the Union raised a demand before the respondent no. 3 for employment of the dependent of the deceased which was replied by the department on 13.02.2017 and finally the respondent no. 3 submitted a failure report of conciliation proceeding to the respondent no. 2 on 27.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was not referred to the competent Labour Court, which should have been. Thus, this application has been filed. 4. Admittedly the original workman was dismissed in the year 2006 and died in the year 2014. Though he made representation and filed an appeal, no demand was raised by him or by the Union to refer the dismissal matter under the Industrial Dispute Act. He kept quiet. Only after his death the Union raised a demand for employment of his dependent in which also there is failure of conciliation proceeding in the year 2017. 5. This writ petition has been filed for referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. From the facts of this case I find that a long time had lapsed in this case. Though there is no limitation prescribed in the act but it is the policy of the industrial adjudication that stale claims cannot be entertained. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt.” reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 at paragraph 44 has held as under:- 44. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the “appropriate Government” to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words “at any time” used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from 2025:JHHC:38271 3 the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. 7. Further, the petitioner i.e. wife of the original workman filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief only on 21.12.2024. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley” reported in (2024) 15 SCC 215 has held as under: 9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action. 9. Thus, considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above and the fact that this writ application has been filed by the petitioner after 18 years of dismissal of the original workman and eight years of failure of conciliation, I hold that the claim is stale. Thus, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 10. This writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.12.2025 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 19.12.2025