(2026:JHHC: 20433-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 47 of 2024 Akhil Bharatiya Koyla Kamgar Union having its office at Rajbari Road, Jharia through its Area Secretary, Dwijendra Nath Sandhu, aged about 71 years, S/o Anadi Kumar Sindhu, R/o Village Bhowra 13 No. P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Sudamdih & District Dhanbad ... Petitioner Versus Employer in relation to the Management of Bhowra Colliery, BCCL having its office at Koyala Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Bhawan, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Kalyan Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr Abhishek Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr Ankit Vishal, Advocate --------- 04 /Dated: 10.07.2026 I.A. No. 2005 of 2026 1. Heard Mr Kalyan Roy, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Mr Abhishek Thakur for the applicant and Mr Ankit Vishal for the respondent. 2. Leave is granted to correct the reference to ‘Criminal Revision’ in paragraphs 7, 8 and the prayer clause in paragraph 9. This expression should be replaced with ‘Civil Review’. Necessary amendments to be carried out forthwith. 3. The I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 113 days in preferring the accompanying review petition. The I.A. refers to the Secretary of the Union being an old and ailing person suffering from some heart ailments. Medical records have also been annexed with the I.A. Considering the above, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been (2026:JHHC: 20433-DB) shown to explain the delay of 113 days. The delay is condoned, and I.A. No. 2005 of 2026 is disposed of. Civil Review No. 47 of 2024 4. This petition seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2023 dismissing the L.P.A. No. 78 of 2023 instituted by the review petitioner-union. 5. Mr Kalyan Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner submitted that the LPA was dismissed broadly on the following two grounds:- (a) That the claim of the Appellant Union was delayed; (b) That there was no employer-employee relationship between the workers represented by the union and the employer. 6. Mr Kalyan Roy submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not prescribe any limitation for raising an industrial dispute or referring the same to the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that no relief could have been denied on the ground of any alleged delay. He relied on Raghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar [(2014) 10 SCC 301] in support of this contention. 7. Mr Kalyan Roy further submitted that it was an admitted position that the workmen whom the union represents were employed in the industry upto 1978. Therefore, the finding about there being no employer-employee relationship is quite perverse. He submits that it is, in fact, an error which is apparent on the face of the record. 8. Mr Kalyan Roy further submitted that the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge, and the Appeal Court should not have faulted the union for failing to produce any documents evidencing employment. He (2026:JHHC: 20433-DB) submitted that, in such circumstances, it was the Tribunal's duty to call for the documents from the employer, since all such documents were in the employer's possession. 9. For all the above grounds, Mr Kalyan Roy submits that the case has been made to exercise the review jurisdiction in this matter. 10. Mr Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the employer submitted that there was no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record of the impugned order. He submitted that the employees that the union represents were only contractual employees engaged by the contractor. Their services were discontinued in 1978, even before the present employer took over the mining industry by virtue of Parliamentary legislation. He submitted that no documents whatsoever were produced to show any continuance of employment at the stage when such takeover was effected. He submitted that these are all findings of fact and the scope of interference in such findings is extremely limited. 11. Mr Ankit Vishal submitted that even the decision in the case of Raghubir Singh (Supra) relied upon by Mr Roy refers to the reference being made within ‘reasonable period’. He submitted that in the present case, the dispute was raised only in 1993 when the employees that the union represents were admittedly discontinued in 1978.Mr Vishal therefore submits that this review may be dismissed. 12. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 13. The records in this case show that the employees the review petitioner represents were contract or piece-rated workers in the mining industry we are concerned with in this matter up to 1978. (2026:JHHC: 20433-DB) 14. Although the services of such employees were discontinued in 1978, the dispute was not raised until 1993. Thus, the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge and the Appeal Court were justified in holding that, assuming the claim had any merit, it was entirely stale and not raised within any reasonable period. 15. Raghubir Singh (Supra) no doubt holds that no limitation period is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute or referring it to the Tribunal. However, the same judgment clarifies that, even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, the dispute must be raised within a reasonable period. Here, there is no explanation for unreasonable delay, and therefore there is no error in the Tribunal and the two Courts' order recording that the claim was stale or raised beyond the reasonable time. There is no error, much less any error apparent on the face of the record, therefore warranting interference in the exercise of the limited review jurisdiction. 16. The observations of the Tribunal and the two Courts regarding the absence of any employer-employee relationship must be read in context. Here, the union directly sought relief of regularisation in 1993, even though the record shows that the employees' services had already been discontinued in 1978. No relief for reinstatement or restoration was ever sought. Therefore, as on the date when the relief of regularisation is claimed, the employees were admittedly not in service. On this basis, no error can be found in the judgment and order under review. 17. Admittedly, the union did not produce any documents in support of its case. Not even an application was made before the Tribunal to (2026:JHHC: 20433-DB) summon any documents from the employer. The union did not even examine the previous employer, i.e., before nationalisation, to depose to the issue of whether the employees concerned with this reference were, in fact, employees of such previous Employer and not merely contractual employees engaged and discontinued by the contractor. 18. The Record, according to the Tribunal, shows that these employees were only on contract and that their contract with their contractor was terminated in 1978. In any event, findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Tribunal followed by the learned Single Judge could not have been easily interfered with by the Appeal Court in the absence of a case of perversity. No such case was even remotely made out by the review petitioner. 19. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the judgment and order dated 21st November 2023 contains no errors and, in any event, no error apparent on the face of record as would warrant the exercise of our review jurisdiction. 20. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this review petition without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. July 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 13.07.2026