Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1540 (HP)

Jitender Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-10-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the Award passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. dated 20.12.2017, in Reference No. 71 of 2006, titled as Jitender Singh vs. The Divisional Forest Officer, vide which, while answering the Reference so made to the learned Tribunal by the appropriate Government, the claim of the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication:- "Whether alleged termination of services of Shri Jitender Singh S/o late Shri Bahadur Singh R/o Village Palkadi, P.O. Dhami, Sub Tehsil Dhami, District Shimla, H.P. during December, 1998 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mist Chamber, Khalini Shimla District Shimla HP, who allegedly worked in the Forest Department as beldar during 1996 to 1998 and has raised his industrial dispute after about 16 years, allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? Whereas the employer denied he working of Shri Jitender Singh in the Forest Department, if not justified keeping in view the contention of employer and delay of about 16 years in raising the alleged industrial dispute, what amount of back-wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer?" 3. The case of the petitioner/workman was that he was engaged as a daily wage Beldar by the Forest Department in January, 1996 under Forest Range, Dhami, and he worked as such up to the year 1997. Thereafter, he worked under Ranger Officer Mashobra at Check Post Dhalli till December, 1998, when his services were terminated illegally without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Prayer in the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman was that his termination be held to be bad and he be ordered to be re-engaged with full back wages and post service benefits including seniority. 4. Prayer in the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman was that his termination be held to be bad and he be ordered to be re-engaged with full back wages and post service benefits including seniority. 4. The Claim of the workman was resisted by the Department inter alia on the issue of delay and laches as the Industrial Dispute stood raised by the workman after 16 years as from the date of his alleged illegal termination and also on the ground that the workman in fact was never engaged as a daily wager worker in the respondent-Department during the year 1996 to 1998 as alleged by the workman. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- "1.Whether the termination of the services of petitioner during December, 1998 without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? ....OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief of service benefits the petitioner is entitled? ......OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? ....OPR 4. Whether the petition is barred by limitation as alleged? ....OPR 5. Relief." 6. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the Issues were answered by the learned Tribunal as under:- "Issue No. 1 : No. Issue No. 2. : Becomes redundant. Issue No. 3 : No. Issue No. 4 : Yes. Relief : Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner per operative part of award." 7. While answering the Reference, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the workman by holding that in fact there was no evidence on record to demonstrate that workman was engaged as daily wage Beldar by the Department nor there was any cogent explanation on record as to why the Industrial Dispute was raised by the workman after a delay of more than 16 years. Learned Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division Kota Vs. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 held that though the limitation Act is not applicable to the Reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising the Industrial Dispute was an important circumstance for exercise of judicial discretion in determining the relief that the Tribunal has to grant. 8. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 held that though the limitation Act is not applicable to the Reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising the Industrial Dispute was an important circumstance for exercise of judicial discretion in determining the relief that the Tribunal has to grant. 8. Learned Tribunal also relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka Vs. Shivalinga, (2002) 10 SCC 167, Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, (2005) 5 SCC 91 , UP State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Ram, (2006) 5 SCC 433 , Assistant Engineer, CAD Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar, (2006) 5 SCC 481 , UP State Transport Corporation Vs. Ram Singh and another, 2008 (17) SCC 627 and State of Karnataka vs. Ravi Kumar, (2009) 13 SCC 746 and a judgment delivered by this Court in CWP No. 1912 of 2016, titled as Bego Devi Versus State of HP and others, decided on 26.10.2016. On the basis of law so laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases referred to above, learned Tribunal held that though the Court cannot import the period of limitation and Reference cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of delay, yet, this does not mean that a stale claim ought to be entertained and relief ought to be granted. 9. Learned Tribunal further held that onus to demonstrate that the dispute was raised within reasonable time, was upon the workman and the workman in the present case had failed to do so, because there was no cogent reason put forth by the workman as to why the Industrial Dispute was raised after a lapse of more than 16 years. It also held that in the facts of this case, this delay was fatal for the simple reason that in the absence of there being any material on record to demonstrate that the workman had actually worked with the respondent-Department, no relief could be granted to the workman. With these findings, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim set up by the workman. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has filed this petition. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the Award under challenge as also the documents appended with the petition. 12. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the findings which have been returned by the learned Tribunal in the Award under challenge. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has filed this petition. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the Award under challenge as also the documents appended with the petition. 12. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the findings which have been returned by the learned Tribunal in the Award under challenge. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal that there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that the workman have ever worked as daily wage Beldar with the respondent-Department between 1996 to 1998 were perverse findings. Meaning thereby that workman in the present case had miserably failed to establish from any contemporaneous record that he was ever engaged as a daily wage Beldar with the respondent-Department as alleged, coupled with this fact, there is also about 16 years delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. Though, there is no dispute that there is no limitation prescribed within which an industrial dispute can be raised, yet there is plethora of law, as relied upon by the learned Tribunal, to demonstrate that stale claim can be rejected. Where there is delay in raising of the Industrial Dispute, onus is upon the workman to demonstrate that despite there being a delay, the cause is still subsisting. This may be either by way of filing of representation(s) or through communication(s) being exchanged between the workman and the employer, from which it could be inferred that the cause is still subsisting. This is missing completely in the present case. No cogent explanation is there on record as to why the Industrial Dispute was raised after more than 16 years. In the absence of the workman having placed on record any material to substantiate that he was, in fact, engaged as a daily wage Beldar with the respondent-Department between 1996 to 1998 and further in the absence of there being any cogent material on record to demonstrate as to why the Industrial Dispute was raised after a lapse of 16 years, the dismissal of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. In view of discussion held hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any infirmity or perversity with the Award passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. dated 20.12.2017, in Reference No. 71 of 2006, titled as Jitender Singh vs. The Divisional Forest Officer, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No orders as to cost.