AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Augustine George Masih, J.—In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 02.05.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No. 1 holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 26.10.1998.
The impugned Award is dated 02.05.2006 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 3 years and 4 months as the writ petition was filed on 03.09.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-9 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:
That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 02.05.2006 and after the publication of award on 28.6.2006, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 24.07.2006. As per request of the workman-respondent, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 17.08.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 24.08.2006 to send his legal opinion to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana whether case is fit for filing writ petition or not? The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 29.09.2006. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instruction vide letter dated 16.10.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana, that writ petition be filed against the award. But, the letter dated 16.10.2006 has not been received in the petitioners'' office. Therefore, Legal Remembrancer, Haryana was again requested to issue instructions. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide letter dated 06.08.2007 informed that instructions have already been issued vide letter dated 16.10.2006 and send copy of the same with this letter. After receipt of instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 2803 dated 20.08.2007 and 1324 dated 12.6.2009 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 2.5.2006. But, the Range Forest Officer, Loharu failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the Range Forest Officer, Loharu. After completing the formalities and getting required papers from Ld. Labour Court on 17.6.2009 by the petitioner''s office, draft writ petition was prepared and submitting for vetting to the Advocate General, Haryana. After vetting the draft writ petition, the writ petition is being filed after a period of about 3 years delay. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay may please be condoned on the grounds stated above.
A perusal of the above would show that the workman was reinstated in service subject, however, to the decision of the writ petition in the year 2006. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 29.09.2006 to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide letter dated 16.10.2006, issued instruction that the case is fit for filing writ petition but the same was not received by the department. Therefore, the department again requested the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, to issue instructions. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide letter dated 06.08.2007 informed that the instructions have already been issued vide letter dated 16.10.2006 and send copy of the same with the letter. After receipt of instructions, Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 2803 dated 20.08.2007 and 1324 dated 12.06.2009 to file a writ petition against the Award dated 2.5.2006. From 20.08.2007 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition has been explained. He submits that the explanation, as given for the delay, may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. He further submits that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the Award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
The explanation, as given by the petitioner, which has been reproduced above, does not show that the petitioner had been vigilant enough in pursuing the matter. The Award in favour of the workman was passed by the Labour Court on 02.05.2006. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 24.07.2006. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 17.08.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. Thereafter, the explanation, which has come on record, speaks for itself with regard to the action taken for challenging the impugned Award. Request on behalf of the petitioner was addressed to the District Attorney, Rohtak vide letter dated 24.08.2006 to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter dated 29.09.2006. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide his letter dated 16.10.2006, issued instruction to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition against the Award but the same was not received in the petitioner''s office. Therefore, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, was again requested to issue instructions to the Advocate General, Haryana for filing writ petition. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana informed vide letter dated 06.08.2007 that the instructions have already been issued vide letter dated 16.10.2006 and send copy of the same with the letter. Thereafter, the Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 2803 dated 20.08.2007 and 1324 dated 12.06.2009 to file a writ petition against the Award.
From 20.08.2007 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 03.09.2009, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay, which would reflect upon the bona-fides and the care and caution put in by the department in pursuing its remedy before this Court. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of 2 years and 14 days. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition.
A perusal of the Award would show that a categoric finding has been given by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties that the workman had continuously worked from 12.05.1989 to 16.09.1997. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with as well as the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated as the principle of ''last come first go'' has not been adopted by the petitioner-Management, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the workman has been taken back in service and is continuing with the petitioner in accordance with letter dated 17.08.2006, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.