Piara Singh vs State of Haryana

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—Piara Singh was appointed as Secretary-cum-Manager in the clerical cadre on July 23, 1976 under the Haryana State Central Co-operative Bank (Common Cadre Rule 1975). On the completion of his probation period he was conformed and transferred to Khotpura Credit Service Society.

On February 17, 1982 a criminal case u/s 409 I.P.C. was registered against him in the Police station Gharaunda. Department inquiry was also initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry against the principles of natural justice as neither evidence was recorded in his presence nor any opportunity of hearing was given. Resultantly, his services were terminated on 21.8.1984. The order terminating his services of which the legality has been challenged, a reference u/s 10 Clause (1) sub-clause (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (short the Act) was made by the State of Haryana for the adjudication of the dispute.

The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat, at the close of the case declared the termination order as illegal and unjust but answered the reference in negative being belated as the workman had raised the dispute after nine years. It was, therefore, held that he was not entitled to the relief claimed. He gave the award on September 24, 1996 which is under challenge.

I have heard Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Geeta Mathuria, AAG and Mr. Gur-inder Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner against whom the criminal case u/s 409 I.P.C. was registered was acquitted by the Magistrate on April 21, 1993 Annexure P2. The learned Presiding Officer also while giving finding under issue No. 2 has observed that it is not proved that Piara Singh embezzled the amount mentioned in the charge-sheet Ex.M1. Since the charges levelled against him have not been proved, therefore, the order terminating his service was held to be illegal and unjust. The point under consideration is whether the period of nine years in raising the demand notice is sufficient to dis-entitle him the relief claimed by him.

In Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Mar-keting-cum-Processing 1998(2) SCT 93 (P&H) : 1999(2) RSJ 407, it has been held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the rule pro- dues and not as a merely hypothetical defence.

The point of delay in making the reference has been set at rest by the apex Court in Mahavir Singh v. V.P. State Electricity Board and others 1994(4) RSJ 132. It was a case where the workman had raised the specific dispute belatedly i.e. after 12 years of termination of his service. It was, therefore, held that once termination is held to be illegal, how the entire reference could be rejected. Para 3 of the judgment is re-produced as under :

"Once the termination is held to be illegal, we failed to appreciate how the entire reference could have been rejected. The dispute lingered on for number of years. That would not mean that the dispute had ceased to exist. It is, of course, true that belatedly the dispute was raised but that has been taken care of by the Labour Court by not awardingfull back wages but only 50% of the back wages all throughout from the date of termination till reinstatement. Which order as passed by the Labour could not be said to be in any way uncalled for and illegal."

In Ajaib Singh''s case (supra) it was observed that where the delay is shown to be existing Labour Court or Board dealing with case can appropriately mould be relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised demand regarding illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal.

In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the apex Court as above, this petition is allowed. The award made by Learned Presiding Officer is modified to the extent that the petitioner if not reinstated be reinstated forthwith as he has agreed to relinquish his demand for back wages. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages from the date of termination of his service till the date he raised the demand. He will, however, be entitled to full wages from the date the demand was made.

This writ petition is disposed of with the modification in the award in the terms indicated above.

Petition allowed.