Harjinder Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar & Ors.

Mr.D.R.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Sudan, Advocate, for Dr.Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-workman has come forward to challenge the award dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar dismissing the dispute in regard to termination of the services of the workman. The Labour Court has dismissed the reference on the ground of delay in preferring the claim. The petitioner, who was appointed to the post of T-Mate on 1.10.1991 stood terminated on 1.6.1992. For some unexplained reason, the workman did not raise any dispute till he sought the reference of the same, which the Government referred to Labour Civil Writ Petition No.13201 of 2009 : 2 : Court on 4.7.2002. Grievance of the petitioner-workman is that his termination was without complying with the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was required to be followed as the petitioner had worked for 245 days continuously. In response, the Punjab State Electricity Board has pointed out that the workman had left the service himself w.e.f.

1.6.1992. As per the Board, this would be even indicative from the fact that he did not make any effort to contest the so-called alleged termination, if it was so, till he served a demand notice on

16.11.2001. On merits, it is stated that the petitioner-workman was engaged on daily wages, but was not appointed as T-Mate. After working for few days, the petitioner left the service without any intimation and did not join the service despite various verbal messages. It is stated that Board had even issued a public notice in the year 1997 for re-employment of the retrenched workman, who had worked and had length of service of 245 days. At that time, those workers who had worked for more than 434 days were even re- employed. The parties were given opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter the Labour Court found that the petitioner-workman had sought reference after 9 years of his so-called alleged termination. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner could not offer any explanation for not raising the dispute within a reasonable time and, thus, was found responsible for delay in seeking the reference. Finding that the delay was not explained in any manner, the reference was declined. Civil Writ Petition No.13201 of 2009 : 3 : The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court could not validly invalidate the reference on the ground of delay alone and rejection of reference on the ground of delay is bad in law. In this regard, the counsel has placed reliance on Karan Singh Vs. M/s Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board, 2007(4) S.C.T. 328. Having made observation that Labour Court cannot invalidate reference on the ground of delay alone, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the employer must challenge the reference by way of writ petition if the reference is delayed in any manner. The other reason which had weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court to so observe was that the Industrial Tribunal in the said case had found that the employer had violated Section 25-F. Having said so, the Tribunal had refused to grant any relief on the ground of delay. That is not the situation in the present case. In many many cases, lapse of time may cause fading or even eclipse of a dispute. If nobody keeps the dispute alive during long interval it would be reasonably possible to conclude in that particular case that the dispute cease to exist after lapse of some time. It is only when the dispute has remained alive, though not galvanized by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons, it may not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. That does not appear to be a position in this case. The petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay of over 9 years in raising the demand which has led to making of the reference after 10 years. It is true that the law does not prescribe any time limit for the Government to exercise the power of making reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Still, it cannot be said that Civil Writ Petition No.13201 of 2009 : 4 : such a power can be exercised at any point of time to revive the matter, which has since been settled. Any power which is available, is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. In M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217, it was held that merely because the industrial dispute does not provide for limitation for raising the dispute, it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at any time and without regard to the delay and the reasons therefor. It is further observed that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of the dispute to an industrial Tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the dispute should be referred as soon as possible after it has arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed. In this case, delay of 4 years in raising the dispute after re-employment of most of the old workmen was held to be fatal. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., 2000(2) SCC 455, delay of 7 years was held to be fatal disentitling the workman to any relief. Reference can also be made to the case of Personal Manager, SBI & Anr. Vs. Krishna Grameena Bank Employees Union & Anr., 2008(1) RSJ 688, where it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that no formula of universal application can be laid down for deciding the reference on the ground of delay in seeking the same and it would depend upon the facts of each individual case. In Haryana Co-operative Society Bank Vs. Neelam, AIR 2005 SC 1843, the delay of 7 years was held justified in declining the reference. Noticing the aim and object of Industrial Disputes Act which may be to impart social justice to the workman, it is held that Civil Writ Petition No.13201 of 2009 : 5 : this would not mean that irrespective of the conduct of the workman, he can be automatically held entitled to a relief. Procedural law like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally held applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situations may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of `Acceptance Sub Silentio'. Thus, where a workman does not raise any industrial dispute questioning his termination within a reasonable time, the courts or Tribunals would be well within their jurisdiction to decline the relief. In the case of Management of M/s Indian Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. Prahlad Singh, AIR 2001 SC 69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the High Court could not interfere in finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on proper appreciation of evidence where reference of dispute sought after 13 years of termination was found stale and due to unexplained and inordinate delay, no relief was granted, which was held justified. Since the delay which is found to be inordinate in this case has remained unexplained, the view taken by the Labour Court is considered justified in law and, thus, would not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. December 20, 2010 ramesh ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE