Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1130 (HP)

NARAYAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2019-08-08

ANOOP CHITKARA, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. CMP No. 7508 of 2019 1. The impleadment application is allowed and the amended memo is ordered to be taken on record. The application is disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 1659 of 2019 2. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order passed by the Government refusing to refer the dispute raised by him, to a Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Heard Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3-Electricity Board. 4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute way back on 03.06.2009, claiming that he was engaged as a Beldar continuously without any break from January, 2000 till 31st March, 2001 and that his services were terminated without following the provisions of the Act. The Labour Commissioner, after the failure of the conciliation proceedings, passed an order on 24.05.2010, refusing to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the 12 months preceding the date of termination. A delay of 8 years was also set up against the petitioner. 5. Challenging the order dated 24.05.2010 of the Labour Commissioner, refusing to refer the dispute, the petitioner filed a writ petition. Though the said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 10.04.2012, liberty was granted to the petitioner to point out if any of his juniors were retained in employment by the employer. 6. Taking advantage of the said liberty, the petitioner made a representation on 23.01.2013. In the said representation, the petitioner claimed that the persons who were junior to him had been retained. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner, alongwith few others filed a fresh writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 11.04.2016 with liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 8. Therefore, the petitioner again raised a dispute on 09.07.2016. But by an order dated 16.01.2018, the Labour Commissioner rejected the representation. 9. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh writ petition in CWP No. 2194 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.01.2019 directing the second respondent to examine the matter afresh. 10. 8. Therefore, the petitioner again raised a dispute on 09.07.2016. But by an order dated 16.01.2018, the Labour Commissioner rejected the representation. 9. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh writ petition in CWP No. 2194 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.01.2019 directing the second respondent to examine the matter afresh. 10. After examining the matter afresh, the Labour Commissioner passed an order dated 30.04.2019, holding that it is not a fit case for reference to the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner is before us. 11. The sequence of the events as has been narrated above shows that the petitioner had been tirelessly fighting for the past nearly 10 years. The question as to whether the petitioner is guilty of seeking redressal after a long delay, is also a matter that could be considered by the Labour Court. When liberties were granted repeatedly by this Court on earlier occasions, it would have been better for the second respondent to refer the dispute to the Labour Court so that some finality is reached. After all, a litigant should know where he stands even on merits. Therefore, we are of the view that without standing on technicalities, the dispute raised by the petitioner should be referred to the Labour Court. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued to the Government to make a Reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. It is open to the Government to include a question with regard to any delay and laches on the part of the petitioner and also the question as to what relief the petitioner would be entitled in the event of his success, in the light of the allegations of delay and laches. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.