Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naranjan Dass vs Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala ... on 5 December, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 2000
Date of Decision: December 05, 2013
Naranjan Dass
............Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board Patiala and others
.........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. R.L. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the respondents
*****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved against the impugned award dated 07.08.1998(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalandhar, petitioner-workman has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned award dated 07.08.1998(Annexure P-3), whereby reference was decided against the petitioner-workman, on account of delay of 8 years as well as on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that while serving with the respondent-management as Apprentice, service of the petitioner-workman was terminated within a period of one year of his joining the service. He raised an industrial dispute after more than 8 years. Conciliation proceedings failed and thereafter the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. Parties led their respective evidence.
After hearing the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion Anjal Gupta 2013.12.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 2000 -2- that since the petitioner-workman was an Apprentice, he was not covered with the definition of a workman provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short). The reference was also declined on the ground of delay of more than 8 years. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Labour Court proceeded on an erroneous approach while deciding the reference against the petitioner-workman. Despite being an Apprentice, he was duly covered with the definition of a workman. So far as the delay was concerned, he submits that the learned Labour Court ought to have moulded the relief instead of deciding the reference against the petitioner- workman solely on the ground of delay. He further submits that since the petitioner-workman became handicap during the course of his service with the respondent-management, the issue of delay ought to have been considered sympathetically in his favour. He prays for setting aside the impugned award by allowing the present writ petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-management submits that the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed, only on the ground of an inordinate and unexplained delay on behalf of the petitioner in raising his industrial dispute.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the following more than one reasons.
It is matter of record that the industrial dispute came to be Anjal Gupta 2013.12.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 2000 -3- raised by the petitioner after more than 8 years of his alleged termination of service. Thus, the claim had become old and stale, which could not have been entertained at that belated stage. Even if the petitioner would have been treated as a workman being an Apprentice, he was expected to raise his industrial dispute within a reasonable time. It is true that there is no statutory limitation provided under the I.D Act yet whenever there is an inordinate long and unexplained delay on the part of the workman, he would be under obligation to explain the same, failing which the old and stale claim would not be entertained and the delay would prove fatal.
In the present case, there was an inordinate long and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner while raising his industrial dispute after more than 8 years. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned award and the same deserves to be upheld for this reason alone.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on record while passing the impugned award. Further, he could not press into service any such argument so as to persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by learned Labour Court.
The abovesaid view taken by this court finds support from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. General Manager instrument design development and facilities centre and another 2010(14) SCC 176, State of Karnataka and another Vs. Ravi Kumar, 2009(13) SCC 746, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Singh and another 2008(17) SCC 627 and Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Vs. Shivalinga 2002(10) SCC 167 as well as judgments of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Executive Engineer and Anjal Gupta 2013.12.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 2000 -4- another passed in CWP No 18653 of 2012 decided on 20.09.2012 and Ram Chander Morya Vs. State of Haryana, 1999(1)S.C.T. 141 (Full Bench).
The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivalinga's case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied on the reasoning of the Labour Court and contended that the view of the High Court would not advance the cause of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon two decisions of this Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. SEB2 to contend that there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act to raise the dispute and it is open to a party to approach the Court even belatedly and the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal can properly mould the relief by refusing or awarding part-payment of back wages. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases, as held by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, such steps could be taken by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, where there is no such dispute as to relationship between the parties as employer and employee. In cases where there is a serious dispute, or doubt in such relationship and records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of maintenance of the same. In such circumstances to make them available to a Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute appropriately will be impossible. A situation of that nature would render the claim to have become stale. This is exactly the situation arising in this case. In that view of the matter, we think the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel have no objection to the case on hand. Proceeding on Anjal Gupta 2013.12.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 170 of 2000 -5- the facts of the case we think the High Court is wrong in having interfered with the award made by the Tribunal. The order made by the High Court in the writ proceedings, therefore, shall stand set aside and the award made by the Labour Court shall stand restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
Reverting back to the facts of the present case, and respectfully following the law laid down in the judgements referred to here- in-above, it is unhesitatingly held that the petitioner raised his industrial dispute after an inordinate delay of more than 8 years. The learned Labour Court proceeded on correct appreciation of facts, as well as the law on the issue while passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 05, 2013 ANJAL Anjal Gupta 2013.12.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh