Mukesh Kumar v. Executive Engineer & Anr.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner has impugned the award dated 20.7.2012, vide which his claim for reinstatement on the post of Tubewell Operator/ Helper with full back wages was rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat (for short, 'the Labour Court'). Briefly, the pleaded facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service with the respondent-department on 1.5.1996. He was drawing salary of ` 2,000/- per month. He worked continuously upto 1.1.1997. His services were terminated on 1.1.1997 without any notice in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated

27.11.2007. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Panipat. Vide its award dated 20.7.2012, the learned Labour Court rejected his claim. The petitioner has now approached this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner. He had completed 240 working days in a calendar year. The delay in serving the demand notice is no ground to decline reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages to the petitioner. There is no period prescribed under the Act as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Civil Writ Petition No. 18653 of 2012 - 2 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. The question of delay in raising the dispute by the workman is involved in the present writ petition. Similar issue was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another Vs. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746, wherein the respondent did not choose to challenge the termination for 14 years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court therein held that since reference was stale, it ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. The relevant para has been reproduced hereunder:- “6. This Court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred- vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty (2000) 2 SCC 455 and Executive Engineer v. Shivalinga (2002) 10 SCC 167. We may also refer to the decision of Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. K.T. Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC

wherein this Court observed that: (SCC p. 182, para 4)

4.....when a power is conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked, the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably, and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness.

In Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the conduct of the respondents in approaching the Labour Court after more than seven years was rightly considered a relevant factor by it in refusing to grant relief to them. It further held that though Court cannot import limitation period when statute does not prescribe but at the same it does not mean that irrespective of facts and circumstances of a case, stale claim should be entertained and relief granted by the authority concerned under the Act.