Dharambir vs The Presiding Officer

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The challenge in this petition is to an order passed u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad. In the application before the Labour Court, it was claimed by the petitioner-workman that he was appointed as a Clerk with the Haryana Roadways, Ballabgarh in February 1986. No appointment letter was issued to him. His services were terminated. He raised a dispute by serving a demand notice which came to be referred to the Labour Court through reference No. 237 of 1994. The reference was answered in favour of the workman and by award dated 10.07.1996 the petitioner-workman was reinstated to service with full back wages. On reinstatement through award, the petitioner pleaded before the Labour Court in the execution proceedings that he applied for joining duty with the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ballabgarh, Faridabad but his joining report was not accepted allegedly on account of no vacancy being available. He levelled allegations of corruption against the respondents that they were demanding Rs. 20,000/- to permit him to join duty. He prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him Rs. 7 lacs as compensation and for a direction to them to make him join duty. Strangely, the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act was filed on 30.03.2006 after 10 years of the award. On notice being issued to the respondents by the Labour Court, a written statement was filed by the management. Preliminary objections were taken that the award was passed in 1996 ordering reinstatement w.e.f. 01.05.1992, the date of retrenchment and in compliance of the award, a letter bearing No. 13875-82/EK/RK dated 25.03.1997 was issued to the applicant asking him to join which was not responded to. I find that there is also no assertion by the workman that he had made a protest application in writing to the employer or the area Labour Inspector that he was being compelled not to join or was being obstructed to do so. The petitioner remained quiet for a decade and did not even bother to file an execution application in any Court, till after 10 years, the present application was presented. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he was not interested in resuming duty. It can be said with some certainty in this case that the petitioner was not interested to work in the Transport Department. He was perhaps in gainful employment elsewhere.

More surprisingly, the respondents produced before the Labour Court a letter through which an amount of Rs. 1,19,381/- was paid to the petitioner together with the calculation sheet of the amount. This fact was supported by MW-1 Bihari Lal appearing in the witness box. The aforesaid amount was paid through draft No. 305736 dated 24.06.1997. This fact was not denied by the workman in the proceedings in the Court below.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no limitation prescribed in making an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act. this contention may be legally correct but the facts of this case demonstrate ten years of inactivity now coupled with the more damaging disclosure of receipt of amount of Rs. 1,19,381/- by the workman-petitioner. The representations relied upon to show that the workman was pressing his claim are ''marked'' documents except two which were exhibited as P-5 dated 05.02.1998 and P-6 dated 06.01.1999. These representations in the opinion of this Court are liable to be ignored and as would not give rise to continuing cause of action. They do not demonstrate due diligence to obtain the fruit of the award passed way back on 10.07.1996, now 17 years ago. It is unfortunate that payment of over one lac twenty thousand odd by the management to the petitioner has not been disclosed, explained, admitted or denied in the body of this petition.

I have no doubt that the application was frivolous, vexatious and in the abuse of process of law. There was no pre-existing right with the petitioner which could have been invoked in execution proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act though no limitation is prescribed for an application u/s 33-C(2) yet delay, laches and conduct are open to be examined in judicial review and would form legitimate basis to deny relief. I find no cogent ground to interfere with the order of the Labour Court dated 29.11.2012 and would dismiss this petition in limine as not warranting admission.