Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Singh vs The Presiding Officer on 20 May, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.9783 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.9783 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION :20.5.2013
Mahabir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and
others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The total length of service put in by the petitioner, claimant before the learned Labour Court in Reference No.117 of 1999 was from 2.11.1978 to 20.12.1980 in two spells of appointment as T-Mate in the Water Services Mechanical Division, Rewari in the Irrigation Department, Haryana.
The petitioner raised an industrial dispute for the first time by serving a demand notice on the management on 28.5.1996, that is, after 15 years. The workman sought reinstatement with full back wages on account of wrongful termination without following procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act").
The management refuted the claim before the Labour Court by filing a written statement. In defence, it is stated that the workman willfully started absenting himself from duty on 20.12.1980 never to return. His services were never terminated although he was appointed on the post of T- Mate through an appointment letter No.7093-94 dated 2.11.1978. The CWP No.9783 of 2013 -2- inference drawn by the learned labour Court was that the workman had abandoned service of his own volition and therefore, there was no occasion to consider compliance of Section 25-F of the Act.
The Labour Court has non-suited the workman on the ground of delay in raising claim. There is no explanation of the delay of 15 years in staking claim to relief. The Labour Court has accepted the plea of the management that the workman had abandoned service.
Though no limitation has been prescribed for bringing actions through Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act calling in question matters falling in Section 2-A yet delay and laches is an important factor to be considered by the labour Court in moulding the relief or to deny it altogether. A delay of 15 years in seeking reinstatement or re-employment in a Government department where posts are governed by rules would be fatal to the action. The respondent-department cannot be surprised by a demand notice served after 15 years asking it to accommodate a person who has slept over his rights, if any, for far too long. Moreover, the period of service rendered as daily wager for about 2 years is also too short to consider a plea of automatic reinstatement to service as a daily wager. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not expect magic or a windfall from Court. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others; (2000) 2 SCC 455, the Supreme Court in a matter involving 7 years' delay observed that a dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. In Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Neelam; (2005) 5 SCC 91, the Supreme Court have held that though Court cannot import a limitation period when the statute does not prescribe the same, it does not mean that irrespective of facts and CWP No.9783 of 2013 -3- circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained and relief granted by the Authority concerned under the Act.
It is a matter of surprise that the impugned award was passed on 1.6.2006 and is sought to be agitated in 2013 after about 7 years.
No ground for interference is made out whatsoever in the challenge to the impugned award dated 1.6.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak.
Dismissed.
This petition should normally have been dismissed with costs but I refrain from doing so since the dismissal is without notice to the respondents and the petitioner belongs to the disadvantaged section of society.
20.5.2013 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) rajeev JUDGE