Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hukam Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 24 February, 2015
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.621 of 2015-C
.
Date of decision : 24.02.2015
Hukam Chand ... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr. B.S.
Parmar & Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Addl. A.Gs.
r and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Dy. A.G. for
State.
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
It is the petitioner's grievance that vide impugned order dated 27.5.2013 (Annexure P-2), respondent No.5 has wrongly rejected his claim on the ground of inordinate delay and latches.
2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals the solitary ground of rejection being delay. The apex Court in Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 (10) SCC 301, has held as under:-
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP
...2...
"13. In the case on hand, no doubt there is a delay in raising the dispute by the appellant; the Labour Court nevertheless has the power .
to mould the relief accordingly. At the time of adjudication, if the dispute referred to the Labour Court is not adjudicated by it, it does not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. The appropriate government in exercise of its statutory power under Section 10 (1) (c ) of the Act can refer the industrial dispute, between the parties, at any time, to either the jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as interpreted by this Court in the Avon Services case referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government has rightly exercised its power under Section 10 (1) (c ) of the Act and referred the points of dispute to the Labour Court as the same are in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Avon Services & Sapan Kumar Pandit cases referred to supra.
14. Further, the workman cannot be denied to seek relief only on the ground of delay in raising the dispute as held in the case of S.M. Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnatak 2003 (4) SCC 27 it was held by this Court as follows-
"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP ...3...
High court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree .... ....In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors.
.
v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 AIR (SCW) 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and r rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief...."
In view of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the above judgment, the reference of the industrial dispute made in the case on hand by the State Government to the Labour Court to adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties was made within a reasonable time, considering the circumstances in which the workman was placed, firstly, as there was a criminal case pending against him and secondly, the respondent had assured the workman that he would be reinstated after his acquittal from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP ...4...
the criminal case. Moreover, it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, .
since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay.
Thus, we do not consider the delay in raising the industrial dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication as gravely erroneous and it does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer.
42. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated at the instance of the respondent. Raising the industrial dispute belatedly and getting the same referred from the State Government to the Labour Court is for justifiable reason and the same is supported by law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Even assuming for the sake of the argument that there was a certain delay and latches on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting the same referenced for adjudication, the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief appropriately in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP ...5...
favour of the workman. That has not been done at all by the Labour Court. Both the learned single judges as well as the Division .
Bench of the High Court in its Civil Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal have failed to consider this important aspect of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of termination passed by the respondent, the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court are liable to be set aside. When we arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the next aspect is whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits. We are of the view that the workman must be reinstated. However, due to delay in raising the industrial dispute, and getting it referred to the Labour Court from the State Government, the workman will be entitled in law for back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute i.e. from 02.03.2005 till reinstatement with all consequential benefits."
3. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned order is thus legally not sustainable.
Consequently, impugned order dated 27.5.2013 (Annexure P-2), is quashed and set aside with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP ...6...
direction to respondent No.5 to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Needful be positively done within a .
period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
r to (Sanjay Karol),
Judge.
(P.S. Rana),
February 24, 2015 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:38:14 :::HCHP