Kesar Singh vs Presiding Officer and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 19430 of 2010, 1858 and 6163 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

CWP No. 19430 of 2010

The petitioner joined the service with the respondent-Board on daily wage basis on 23.12.1988. He worked continuously upto 30.11.1989 and his services were terminated on 01.02.1989. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 25.04.2000. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala on 18.09.2001. Vide its award dated 03.02.2010, the learned court below held that the termination of services of the petitioner is illegal and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). However, the learned Labour Court granted the relief of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

CWP No. 1858 of 2011

The petitioner joined the service as Surveyor on work charge basis on 03.03.1986. He worked continuously upto 02.06.1988 and his services were terminated on 03.06.1988. He raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 29.11.1996. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court, Patiala on 05.02.1998. Vide its award dated 20.04.2009, the learned court below held that the termination of the service of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. However, relief of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- has been granted in lieu of reinstatement.

CWP No. 6163 of 2011

The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-management on 01.01.1985 as daily wager. He worked continuously upto 30.01.1987 and his services were terminated on 31.01.1987. He raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 31.05.1994. Vide its award dated 16.07.2010, learned court below declined the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages, however, the respondent-Board was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the workman.

The aforesaid orders of the learned court below are under challenge in the bunch of writ petitions.

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 petitioners. He referred to the decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 551: 2010 (3) SCC 192 and Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana), There is no period prescribed under the Act as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act.

On the others hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the workmen have not been able to make out any ground before the learned court below after a period of about 7 to 11 years to substantiate that the industrial dispute continued to subsist between the parties. In the absence thereof, reference could not have been made and that the same could not have been entertained by the learned court below. He further submitted that the workmen were required to give explanation/justification for having raised the claim under the provisions of the Act, after a gap of about 7 to 11 years.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

In all the above mentioned writ petitions, common question about delay in raising the dispute by the workmen is involved. Similar issue was considered by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Ravi Kumar, , 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:-

This Court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred-vide The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, and Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, (2002) 1 LLJ 457SC . We may also refer to the decision of Regl. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. M/s. K.T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., , 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, 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.

Similar issue was also considered by this Court in 2004(2) S.C.T. 333: CWP No. 1301 of 2003, titled as Director, Food and Supplies Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and another, decided on 24.02.2004, 2007(1) S.C.T. 207: CWP No. 932 of 2006, titled as National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal v. Yash Pal and another, decided on 26.09.2006 and 2009(3) S.C.T. 74: CWP No. 545 of 1986, titled as Management of M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. 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 present set of petitions, the petitioners have raised demand notices after a delay of 7 to 11 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 petitioners. The impugned awards do not call for interference by this Court.

For the aforementioned reasons, the present petitions are dismissed.