Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 691 (HP)

Yadav Singh v. H. P. State Electricity Board Ltd

2020-10-07

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- "i) That the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by respondent No.2 contained in Annexure P-1 may kindly be set aside/quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to refer the claim/dispute of the petitioner to the Ld. Labour Court, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh by issuing a writ of mandamus or in the alternative, the respondent Board may kindly be directed to re-engage to the petitioner". 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Beldar somewhere in the year 1990 and his services were disengaged according to the petitioner in the year 1998. Feeling aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute somewhere in the year 2010, which was rejected by the Government on the point of delays and latches in the year 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No.8088 of 2012 before this Court, which was decided by this Court by issuing directions to the respondent-Electricity Board that in case the employer required additional manpower on account of additional work requiring the engagement of fresh hand, then they may consider the case of the petitioner. In other words, the order vide which the dispute raised by the petitioner was rejected by the State on the ground of delays and latches, was not set aside by this Court in the earlier writ petition which was filed by the petitioner and said order to said extent attained finality. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to the department concerned for implementation of the judgment. Vide Notification dated 19.07.2014, the department invited applications for filling up the posts of Junior Tea-Mates, but the petitioner was not given any preference. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to the department concerned for implementation of the judgment. Vide Notification dated 19.07.2014, the department invited applications for filling up the posts of Junior Tea-Mates, but the petitioner was not given any preference. He again approached this Court by way of CWP No.3076 of 2016, titled as Manohar Lal and others Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others, which stood decided by this Court on 14.12.2016 in the following terms:- "After hearing for a while, Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw writ petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Reghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, (2014) AIRSCW 5515 and also to seek relief sought in the instant writ petition, at appropriate stage. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty, As prayed for, alongwith all pending applications. The interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated". 3. It is thereafter, that order dated 03.12.2018 has been passed by the Deputy Labor Commissioner which stands impugned by way of this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. Vide impugned order, Deputy Labour Commissioner has held that the dispute raised by the petitioner was stale, had faded away with the passage of time and at a belated stage, there was no justification whatsoever to refer the matter to learned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. This conclusion was arrived at by the officer concerned after chronologically dealing with the events that took place after the first request made by the petitioner to raise industrial disputes stood dismissed by the appropriate Government. The relevant portion of the order passed by the officer is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Whereas, as per demand notice dated nil (received on 25-03-2017) workman has alleged that he has filed his representation before the above mentioned employer in compliance to above orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the same has been rejected by the employer. He has not assailed the orders of the employer before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by way of review petition/ appeal. He has not assailed the orders of the employer before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by way of review petition/ appeal. It is found that this case has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and had already attained finality. The workman had not adduced any additional reasons/ materials in support of his claim with authentic justification for the condonation of inordinate delay of about 16 years and the judgment of Apex Court in Raghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways had also been discussed by the Double Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.1912/2016, titled Smt. Bego Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.398/2011, titled M.C. Paonta Sahib vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others has held the similar view which was further upheld by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Court in CWP No.1486 of 2007 titled Liaq Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court in Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 26-10-2016 in CWP No.1912/2016, titled Smt. Bego Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, clubbed with other 24 CWP's containing common questions of law and facts, has upheld the various orders of declining of reference of this office and has held that, "it is beaten by law of land that delay takes away the settings of law. A person who does not seek relief within time, his petition has to be dismissed only on the grounds of delay and latches, otherwise, it would amount to gross misuse of jurisdiction and disturb the settled position. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the dispute as discussed hereinabove, and as per provisions contained in Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I have formed an opinion and arrived at the conclusion that the alleged dispute stale, faded away with the passage of time, in this belated stage there is no justification whatsoever to refer this matter to the Ld. Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, hence, declined. Let the copy of this Order be conveyed to all concerned parties for information as per provisions contained in Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947". 6. Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, hence, declined. Let the copy of this Order be conveyed to all concerned parties for information as per provisions contained in Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947". 6. In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order which has been passed by the competent authority, declining the reference of the matter to learned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 7. As, I have already mentioned hereinabove also, the dispute initially raised by the petitioner was dismissed by the Government as far back as in the year 2011, on the ground of delays and latches. The order so passed by the appropriate Government was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court as it is a matter of record that in the writ petition which was so filed by the petitioner, the order passed by the Government was not set aside by this Court. Even the subsequent petition which was filed by the petitioner, was not adjudicated by this Court on merit and the same in fact was withdrawn by the petitioner in terms of contents of the order passed by this Court which already stand reproduced hereinabove. 8. That being the case, no fault can be found with the order which has now been passed by the competent authority declining to refer the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the dispute has become stale and has faded away with the passage of time. It is pertinent to mention, at this stage, that services of the petitioner were terminated as per him also as far back as in the year 1998. Today, we are in the year 2020. The impugned order has been passed by the authority concerned on 03.12.2018. Initial delay in raising the industrial dispute was at the behest of the petitioner who admittedly raised the dispute with regard to his illegal termination after a decade as from the date when his services were terminated. That being the case, the petitioner otherwise also cannot be permitted to take the advantage of his own acts of omission. 9. In view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.