Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 281 (HP)

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER v. BHARTU RAM

2003-09-16

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—Respondents No. 1 to 11 herein were employed as daily rated Baildars on different dates. Their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Reference was made to the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in the following terms : "Whether the termination of services of Shri Bhartu Ram and 17 other workers (List enclosed) by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Paonta, District Sirmaur (HP) on completion of 240 days continuous service without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry and without compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified, if not, to what relief of service benefits including back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, these aggrieved workmen are entitled?" 2. The defence raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court was that the respondents did not complete 240 days preceding to the year when they left the job of their own and therefore Section 25-F of the Act was not applicable. 3. The Labour Court after perusal of the record of the petitioners found as fact that the respondents had completed 240 days. In the year preceding their termination. This position is not disputed before me. Other plea of the petitioners that respondents abandoned the job of their own by abstaining from the work too was rejected. 4. The Labour Court in the facts of the case held that the termination of the respondents was illegal unjustified. The termination was set aside and the respondents-workmen were held entitled to reinstatement with the continuity of service and seniority from the date of Reference to the Court. The court took a view that respondents were not entitled to any back wages. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioners are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The only contention of the petitioners is that the Reference made to the Labour Court after seven years was incompetent having become stale. The argument is that it cannot be said that any dispute existed, after seven years of the termination of the service, within the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. I need not go into this question as this question was not raised before the Labour Court. The argument is that it cannot be said that any dispute existed, after seven years of the termination of the service, within the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. I need not go into this question as this question was not raised before the Labour Court. It was not the case of the employer that the Reference being stale is not liable to be answered. 8. In Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.R State Electricity Board, 2001 LILR 265, the Apex Court took a view that the plea of an employer that the Reference suffers from inordinate delay and therefore, Industrial Disputes does not exist or it has become very stale can be appropriately considered by the concerned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal by moulding the relief. 9. In the absence of any such plea before the Labour Court such plea cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. C.M.Ps. Nos. 2405 of 2002 and 499 of 2003 : In view of the disposal of the writ, these applications did not survive. Dismissed, as such.