Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 700 (HP)

Hari Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-09

V.K.AHUJA

body2012
JUDGMENT : V.K. Ahuja, J. Petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation and no findings were given on the reference made as to whether termination of the services of the petitioner by the respondents was violative of Sections 25-F and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State, and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It is clear that the reference was made by the Labour Commissioner to the Labour Court and issues were also framed in that regard and, therefore, findings were required to be given on issue No.1, as mentioned above, apart from the other issues. However, the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court only decided the matter that the reference was barred by time. 5. During the course of arguments, my attention has been drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board, (2007) 14 SCC 291 . A perusal of paras 13 and 14 shows that it was observed that the Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the reference. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P.SEB, (2001) 6 SCC 222 , wherein it was held that the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. However, of course, the long delay for making adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authority while moulding its reliefs. 6. It follows from the above discussion that the reference had to be answered by the Labour Court and the question of the reference having been made belatedly could have been considered at the time of giving the relief. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 13.6.2006, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, who shall give his findings afresh on all the issues and then answer the reference accordingly. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 13.6.2006, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, who shall give his findings afresh on all the issues and then answer the reference accordingly. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 5.11.2012, who shall take steps to dispose of the case within a period of four months from the date fixed for hearing of the case. The Registry is directed to send the record of the case along with a copy of this judgment to the Labour Court forthwith, so as to reach there well before the date fixed. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.