Raghubir Singh v. The Presiding officer & Anr.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J.

The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P-4), whereby his claim for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages was rejected by the learned Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Rohtak.

The petitioner was appointed as Beldar with respondent- department in August, 1989. He worked in the department continuously upto May 1996. After he had put in more than seven years of service, his services were terminated in May 1996 in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) as no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The petitioner then served a demand notice dated 12.2.2001 praying his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which was decided against the petitioner vide the impugned award dated 23.7.2010. It is this award which is impugned in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in serving the demand notice is no ground to decline reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages to the petitioner. He referred to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 192 and Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer , 2010 (3) SCC 637. There is no period prescribed under Civil Writ Petition No. 3876 of 2011 (2) the Act as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.

book.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper The question about 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

181. 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 7 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. Civil Writ Petition No. 3876 of 2011 (3)

Similar issue was also considered by this Court in CWP No. 1301 of 2003, titled as Director, Food and Supplies Punjab and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar and another, decided on 24.02.2004, CWP No. 932 of 2006, titled as National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal Vs. Yash Pal and another, decided on 26.09.2006 and CWP No. 545 of 1986, titled as Management of M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.01.2009, wherein it has been held that demand notice issued by the workman by raising an industrial dispute after a delay of more than 7 years is ex-facie bad and incompetent and therefore, the reference was held to be not maintainable before the Labour Court. It was further held that appropriate Government should also examine cautiously raising of stale demand and only if the workman is able to render reasonable explanation for the delay and is able to spell out existence and subsistence of industrial dispute, such reference for adjudication would be sustainable. If such explanation is not forthcoming and the industrial dispute does not remain in existence, such stale demand should not be entertained. In the judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner, issue of delay in demand notice was not raised and dealt with.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised demand notice after a delay of about five years and no explanation is forthcoming for such delay, as none was submitted before the appropriate Government nor any was submitted before the learned court below and none has been pointed out before this Court.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the cases, if considered in the light of enunciation of law as referred to above, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in declining relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. The impugned award does not call for interference by this Court.

For the aforementioned reasons, the present petition is dismissed.

3.12.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge