Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division v. Phoolsingh Mali

Order

The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "i) By issuance of suitable Writ, Direction or Order in the nature thereof thereby the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Award dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur in case LCR No. 1622/2014 (12/2011), "Phoolsingh Mali Vs. Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division-Sapotra, District-Karauli" and further pleased to dismiss the statement of claim filed by the respondent in toto. ii) Any other Order or Direction, which your lordships may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice. iii) The Writ Petition may kindly be allowed throughout with costs. " [2026:RJ-JP:5011] (2 of 6) [CW-17995/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman has raised the dispute after a delay of 19-20 years and due to delay, the respondent workman is not entitled for any relief, but the learned Labour Court without considering the delay has allowed the reference and awarded compensation to the respondent workman. He further submits that after several years, it is impossible for any of the Department to produce proper record and the facts before any of the Tribunal but the Labour Court taking note of the fact that the workman has abandoned his claim for reinstatement, has directed payment of compensation. He further submits that the order per se is illegal and contrary to settled canons of law.

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the respondent workman has worked as daily wager, who is a rustic villager, and not aware about his right and entitlement. He further submits that the core question before the Labour Court was whether the termination order was illegal or not. He further submits that the Labour Court has awarded the compensation instead of reinstatement.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

After a dispute is raised by the respondent workman, the Labour Department has referred the same under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') for determination to the Labour Court. A specific question was framed in the reference about the delay, in particular, raising the dispute after a substantial delay, 19 years. [2026:RJ-JP:5011] (3 of 6) [CW-17995/2022]

The Labour Court while considering the provision of the Act of 1947, has opined that no particular limitation is prescribed for raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Even learned counsel has failed to show any period of limitation prescribed for raising dispute under the Act of 1947.

In case of the State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Raj