Mukesh Kumar v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat & Anr.

CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the workman challenging the order dated 20.9.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 18653 of 2012, filed by the appellant for quashing the award dated 20.7.2012 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court, deciding the reference against him, has been dismissed. Undisputedly, in this case, the Labour Court has rejected the claim of the workman on the ground that he has not produced any record and any cogent evidence on the file to prove that he had worked continuously with the management for more than 240 days in a calender year preceding the date of his termination. It has also been found that the LPA No. 1541 of 2012 ( O&M ) -2- workman issued the demand notice after ten years of the alleged termination of his services.

The learned Single Judge upheld the award of the Labour Court, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91, and a decision of this Court in Director, Food and Supplies Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and another, (CWP No. 1301 of 2003, decided on 24.2.2004), wherein it was held that demand notice issued by the workman by raising an industrial dispute after a delay of more than seven years is ex-facie bad and incompetent and therefore, the reference court was justified in denying the claim to the workman. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. M/s. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board, (Civil Appeal No. 4561 of 2007, decided on September 28, 2007). In that case, the demand notice was issued by the workman after six years of the alleged termination of his services and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case, though granted relief to the workman but held that delay in raising an industrial dispute may be fatal in absence of plausible and acceptable explanation.

In the present case, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have come to the conclusion that the workman has failed to explain the delay of 10 years in issuing the demand notice. In these facts, the delay has been held to be fatal LPA No. 1541 of 2012 ( O&M ) -3- and claim of the workman has been declined. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed. Sd/- ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 03, 2012 Sd/- ( INDERJIT SINGH ) JUDGE