Learned Standing Counsel states that in the year 1993, the respondent no. 2 had raised industrial dispute in respect of his termination on 31.7.1990 and his claim has been rejected and thereafter, after 9 years he raised industrial dispute relating to termination of his service. The claim was highly belated and should not be entertained. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 has been reinstated only on the ground that there was a violation of 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ("Act"). In a number of recent decisions, the Apex Court has held that in case if the workman makes belated claim, he is not entitled for reinstatement and there is violation of Section 6-N of the Act, the workman is only entitled for compensation and not for reinstatement.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date. The petitioner may take steps to serve the respondent no. 2 by registered post.
List after six weeks.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 18.2.2013 in case no. 92 of 2002, Shushila Devi Vs. Jila Gramya Vikas Ahbikaran, Bijnor, shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2014 OP