Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 860 (HP)

Narpat Ram v. HP State Electricity Board

2016-05-19

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. The present petition has been filed against the award passed by learned Labour Court in Ref. No. 200 of 2002 decided on 25.7.2006, vide which the reference has been dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was initially engaged by the respondent-Board on daily wages as a Beldar in Arki Sub Division in the year 1979. He worked as such upto 23.5.1989. Though he had completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, but ignoring this aspect of the matter, his services were illegally terminated by the respondent- Board without giving any retrenchment compensation or notice, as is required under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, he raised dispute and the matter was referred by the Labour Commissioner to the learned Labour Court in the year 2002. 3. After the receipt of reference, the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner and reply to the same was filed by respondent- Board. On the basis of pleadings before the learned Labour Court, following issues were framed: “1. Whether the termination of petitioner by respondent without notice, charge-sheet, retrenchment compensation is proper and justified?....OPR. 2. If issue No.1 is not proved, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? …OPP. 3. Whether the claim is time barred and not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether there is no enforceable cause of action? OPR. 5. Whether the claim is not maintainable in the present form? …OPR. 6. Whether the petitioner left the job of his own, as alleged? …OPR. 7. Whether junior persons have been retained?...OPP. 8. Relief.” 4. The learned Labour Court on the basis of material on record returned the following findings against the said issues: “Issue No.1. Yes. Issue No.2 Not entitled to any relief. Issue No.3. Yes. Issue No.4 Not pressed. Issue No.5 Not pressed. Issue No.6. Yes. Issue No.7 Not proved. Relief. Reference answered vide operative part of the award.” 5. Mr. Thakur has argued that the award passed by learned Labour Court is per se perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law because the learned Labour Court has erred in dismissing the reference by terming the same, as time barred without appreciating that there is no authority vested in the learned Labour Court to dismiss a reference made to it by holding the same to be time barred. According to Mr. According to Mr. Thakur, the learned Labour Court has to adjudicate the same on merit and in case the learned Labour Court comes to the conclusion that there is delay on the part of workman in approaching the learned Labour Court for the redressal of his grievance by raising industrial dispute, then there are consequences of the same and while passing the award, the learned Labour Court can always take these factors into consideration. However, delay per se cannot be a ground on which the reference can be dismissed. Mr. Vaidya learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has very fairly submitted that as far as this legal proposition is concerned, there is no dispute. He has further submitted that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice shall be served in case the award passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside and the learned Labour Court is directed to pass award afresh within a time bound period in accordance with law. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the award passed by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in law because the learned Labour Court has erred in dismissing the reference petition, inter alia, by holding the same to be time barred. Once a reference had been received for adjudication by the learned Labour Court, then the same ought to have been adjudicated on merit on the basis of material produced before it by the parties concerned. This adjudication by the learned Labour Court obviously has to depend upon the pleadings of the parties as well as the material which the respective parties are able to place on record before the learned Labour Court. However, the learned Labour Court cannot reject the adjudication of a reference received by it on merit on the ground that the same is time barred. 7. Therefore, in this view of the matter, impugned award dated 25.7.2006 in Ref. No. 200 of 2002 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Labour Court, Shimla with further direction that the same be adjudicated upon afresh and award be passed in accordance with law on or before 30th September, 2016. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Labour Court, Shimla on 30.5.2016. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Labour Court, Shimla on 30.5.2016. The Registry is directed to return back the record received, if any to the learned Labour Court, Shimla forthwith. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.