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 01.06.2006 (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. 2 holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of receipt of the reference i.e. 17.09.2001.
The impugned award is dated 01.06.2006 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 2 years 8 months as the writ petition was filed on 11.02.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:
That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 01.06.2006 and after the publication of award, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 26.06.2007. As per request of the workman-petitioner, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 13.08.2007 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 14.08.2007 to send his legal opinion to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana whether case is fit for filing writ petition or not? But, the District Attorney, Rohtak did not send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. After that the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana was requested by the petitioner-Management vide letter dated 14.07.2008 and 1.9.2008 that the Forest Department wants to file writ petition against the award and the Advocate General, Haryana may be instructed to file writ petition. In this regard, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instruction vide letter dated 07.08.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the award. After completing the formalities and completion of papers, draft writ petition was prepared and submitted to the Advocate General, Haryana office for vetting. After vetting the draft petition, the present writ petition is being filed after a period of 2 years and 7 months 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 2007. A request was made vide letter dated 14.08.2007 to the District Attorney, Rohtak to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembracer, Haryana but he did not send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. Then, a request was made by the petitioner to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana on 14.7.2008 and 1.9.2008 to issue instructions for filing writ petition. In reply, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions vide letter dated 07.08.2008, to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition. From 07.08.2008 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 petitioner.
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 01.06.2006. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 26.06.2007. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 13.08.2007 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 14.08.2007 to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana but the District Attorney, Rohtak did not send his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. Then, a request was made by the petitioner to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide letter dated 14.07.2008 and 1.9.2008 to issue instruction to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 07.08.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition challenging the award.
From 07.08.2008 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 11.02.2009, 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 about six months. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an 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 01.10.1992 to 31.05.1995. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with and have been violated by the petitioner-Management, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service with 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 the letter dated 13.08.2007, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.