Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 September, 2019
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 610 of 2019
.
Decided on: 04.09.2019
Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu,
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
with M/s. Ritta Goswami, Adarsh K.
Sharma, Ashwani K. Sharma and Nand
Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates
General, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice. (Oral)
Aggrieved by the refusal of the Government to refer an industrial dispute to the Labour CourtcumIndustrial Tribunal, the workman has come up with the above writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:07:49 :::HCHP 23. The petitioner herein raised an industrial dispute contending that he was employed as a Chowkidar in the office of .
respondent No. 3 way back in the year 1996 and that he was employed till the year 2002. The petitioner claimed that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in every calendar year and that his services were orally terminated in the year 2002.
4. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the Government refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner was guilty of delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.
5. Even as per the impugned order the only ground on which the Reference was refused to be made was that the petitioner was guilty of delay and laches. But delay and laches by itself cannot be a ground for refusing to make a Reference. If a person is guilty of delay and laches, it may be a ground for the Labour Court either to refuse to grant relief or refuse to grant relief of back wages. The Government cannot take up the role of adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference should be made or not.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:07:49 :::HCHP 36. It is recorded in the impugned order that after the conciliation, no settlement was reached under Section 12(4) of the .
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Once it is not disputed that the provisions of the Act would apply, it may not be open to the Government to nonsuit a worker only on the ground of delay and laches.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Government is directed to make a Reference of the dispute. It shall include the questions as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to any relief and if so with reference to delay and laches on his part and as to whether the petitioner has completed 240 days of continuous service in a period of twelve calendar months or not.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of.
(V. Ramasubramanian) Chief Justice (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge September 04, 2019 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 03:07:49 :::HCHP