Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 282 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. NARESH KUMAR

2003-09-16

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—De-linked from the bunch matter. 2. Respondent Naresh Kumar was employed as daily rated Baildav by the petitioners on 1st September, 1991. His 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 Naresh Kumar, son of Shri Rattan Singh, Vill. Lunapani, RO. Bhangrotu, Teh. & Distt. Mandi, H.R by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Baggi, District, Mandi, H.P w.e.f. 1.6.1994 on completion of 240 days continuous service, without any notice, enquiry, charge-sheet & without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified. If not, to what relief of past service benefits including back wages, seniority and amount of compensation, continuity in service and amount of compensation, Shri Naresh Kumar is entitled?" 3. The defence raised by the petitioners before the Labour Court was that the respondent did not complete 240 days preceding to the year when he left the job of his own and therefore Section 25-F of the Act was not applicable. 4. The Labour Court after perusal of the record of the petitioners found as fact that the respondent had completed 240 days in the year preceding his termination. This position is not disputed before me. Other plea of the petitioners that respondent abandoned the job of his own by abstaining from the work too was rejected. „ 5. The Labour Court in the facts of the case held that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal and unjustified. The termination was set aside and the respondent-workmen was held entitled to reinstatement with the continuity of service from the date of Reference to the Court. The Court also took a view that, in view of the delay in approaching the authority for redressal of the grievance, the respondent was entitled to only 40% back wages from the date of termination till re-engagement. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioners are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the Reference made to the Labour Court after three years was incompetent having become stale. 6. Aggrieved, the petitioners are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the Reference made to the Labour Court after three years was incompetent having become stale. The argument is that after lapse of three years of termination of services it cannot be said that any dispute existed at the time of making Reference within the meaning of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. 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. 9. In Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. 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 Dispute 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. 10. In the absence of any plea of inordinate delay 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. 11. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.