Nirmal Singh vs The Labour Court, Patiala and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 03.02.2009, whereby the Labour Court declined the relief of reinstatement and back-wages to the petitioner. Briefly, pleaded facts are that the petitioner joined as a watchman on 1.8.1984 with the respondents/ management on daily wage basis. The petitioner continued to serve the respondent-Department till 31.12.1986. His services were terminated on 1.1.1987 without giving any notice. He raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 27.6.1998. The dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. Vide its award dated 3.2.2009, learned Labour Court did not grant relief of reinstatement and back-wages to the petitioner but awarded compensation of 10,000.

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, 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 other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the workman has not been able to make out any ground before the learned court below after a period of 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 workman was required to give explanation/justification for having raised the claim under the provisions of the Act, after a gap of 11 years. Being state claim the learned court below has rightly declined relief to the petitioner.

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

The only question involved in the present petition is regarding delay in raising industrial dispute. 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 state, it ought to have been rejected on that ground alone. The relevant para has been reproduced hereunder:--

This Court has repeatedly held that state 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, state claim should be entertained and relief granted by the authority concerned under the Act.

Similar issue was considered by this Court in CWP No. 1301 of 2003, titled as Director, Food and Supplies Punjab and another v. Ashwani Kumar and another, decided on 24.2.2004, CWP No. 932 of 2006, titled as National Dairy Research Institute. Kamal v. Yash Pal and another, decided on 26.9.2006 and 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 state 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 state demand should not be entertained.

In the present petition, the petitioner has raised demand notice after a delay of more than 11 years and no explanation is forthcoming for such delay, as none was submitted either before the appropriate Government or before the learned court below or even before this Court.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, 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.