Public Works Workers Union, Chandigarh v. Vice Chancellor, Panjan University, Sector-14, Chandigarh & Ors.

Present:- Mr. Jagmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the award dated 01.03.1994 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner-Union contends that the services of 24 workmen were terminated by the respondent-University without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, on 01.12.1985. He submits that immediately thereafter, a representation dated 02.12.1985 (Annexure-P-6) was made to the respondent-University with regard to illegal termination of the services of the workmen. No response was received from them. The workmen had been time and again approaching the respondent-University for taking them back in service, but on each occasion, their requests had not been accepted. He contends that thereafter, a representation dated 26.04.1986 (Annexure-P-8) and thereafter, a reminder dated 09.09.1985 (Annexure-P-9) was submitted, but no response was received thereto. He on this basis prays C.W.P. No. 15063 of 1994. -2- that the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court with regard to delay there being on the part of the workmen in making the demand as also that since the workmen, had not approached the respondent-University, which would amount to abandonment of their jobs, could not be sustained. However, he very fairly concedes that a representation dated 24.04.1986 (Annexure-P-8) and a reminder dated 09.09.1985 (Annexure-P-9), do not form part of the record of the learned Labour Court. On the other hand, counsel for respondent-University submits that the workmen did not turn up for duty in December, 1985. The representation which had been submitted was dated 02.12.1985 (Annexure-P- 6). There is nothing on the records after that, which would suggest that the workmen had been approaching the respondent-University to take them back in service. As a matter of fact, after having abandoned the jobs in the year, 1985, when the seniority list was being prepared in the year, 1991, for the purpose of regularization of services of the workmen, the petitioner-Union served a demand notice. It was an effort on the part of the workmen to take the benefit of regularization and it was with that intention primarily that the demand notice was served upon the respondent-University. He further contends that the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court with regard to the workmen having abandoned their jobs in the year, 1985, as also the entire un-explained delay of five years in preferring the demand notice as the same is based on the records and the evidence, which had been produced by the parties before the learned Labour Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. It is a conceded position that except representation dated

02.12.1985 (Annexure-P-6), which is also a marked document and is not an C.W.P. No. 15063 of 1994. -3- exhibit, there is nothing on record to suggest that from 01.12.1985 (alleged date of termination) till 19.12.1990 (date when the demand notice was preferred by the petitioner-Union on behalf of the workmen), that the workmen had ever approached the respondent-University against illegal termination of their services or they being taken back in service. That being the position, the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court with regard to the fact that the workmen had abandoned their jobs in the year, 1985, is fully justified. It is the case of the petitioner-Union that the services of the workmen were terminated on 01.12.1985. The demand notice was dated

19.12.1990. There is, thus, delay of five years in making the demand from the date of termination. There is no explanation forthcoming for the entire delay of five years in making the demand by the petitioner-Union on behalf of the workmen. Reliance at this stage can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Versus K.P. Madhavankutty and others, 2000 (2) S.C.C. 455, in para-6, which reads as follows :- “6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the C.W.P. No. 15063 of 1994. -4- matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent.” In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra), and there being no explanation to the delay of five years in making the demand from the alleged date of termination, the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court, vide its impugned award dated 01.12.1994 (Annexure-P-10), is in accordance with law. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. January 21, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE