KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the award dated 6 th September, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in industrial dispute (ID) No. 332/2011 wherein the learned Tribunal held that the punishment of withholding of promotion of the workman for a period of 2 years as imposed by the Respondent was illegal and unjustified. However, it refused to grant him any relief on the ground that the case was barred by delay and laches.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the claim of Petitioner was barred by delay and laches. Provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the ID Act and the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay, if raised by the employer, is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and is not a mere hypothetical defence. Even in a case where delay in raising claim is shown to exist, the Industrial Adjudicator can appropriately mould the relief, however cannot decline the reference on the ground of delay and laches. Reliance is placed on Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Anr., 1999 6 SCC 82 & Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another, 2011 AIR(SC) 455. It is further contended that the workman was continuously pursuing his case before the management by filing appeals dated 2 nd July, 1996 and 7 th September, 1998 and a demand notice dated 6 th September, 2006 and even otherwise the non-promotion of the workman is a continuous cause of action hence, no time limit can be prescribed to raise the claim. Reliance is also placed on Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., 2001 6 SCC 222 to contend that when the dispute remained alive, though not galvanized by the workmen on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane away into total eclipse.

(3.) Per contra learned counsel for the Respondent contends that the industrial dispute was raised by a workman after a delay of 12 years after imposition of penalty on him. Workman, further, has given no reasonable explanation for such a delay in raising his claim before the learned Tribunal. Although, the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the ID Act and the Court cannot import a period of limitation where the Statute does not prescribe the same, but it does not mean, that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate government while making reference or by the Tribunal in deciding the reference on merits when already made. Reliance is placed on Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, 2005 5 SCC 91 in support of this contention. It is further contended that the workman has not placed on record any proof or explanation to show the reason behind such a delay. It was for the Petitioner to show that he had raised dispute within a reasonable time, and that he was not responsible for any delay which in the present case the workman has failed to prove and thus, he was rightly denied any relief by the learned Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Ram, 2006 5 SCC 433 and Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahlad Singh, 2001 1 SCC 424.