MAMAN CHAND Vs. LABOUR COURT, BATHINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ, petition has been filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 14.11.1991 (copy Annexure P/1) vide which relief of reinstatement along with consequential benefits was declined to them. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that the termination of the services of the petitioners was neither justified nor in order and the issue was decided against the management. However, petitioner No. I had raised the industrial dispute after seven years of his termination and petitioner No. 2 had raised industrial dispute after 9 years of his termination and, therefore, the Labour Court declined to interfere with the order of their termination. Counsel for the petitioners argued that delay should not be a cause for denying the relief to the workman and at the most the relief of back wages can be moulded. As against this there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others : AIR 2000 S.C. 839, in which the dispute raised after seven years was considered to be stale. In the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra) the workman raised a dispute because other workmen who were similarly removed from service were taken on duty. The Labour Court found that the demand had become stale. All these points could have been considered but counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection that this writ petition itself filed at a belated stage. The award of the Labour Court is dated 14.11.1991 while this writ petition is filed on 16.8.2000. Counsel for the petitioners had tried to explain the delay, According to him the petitioners found it proper to file this writ petition when they came to know about another award passed by the Labour Court on 14.11.1991 copy of which has been produced at Annexure P/2 in which, according to the learned counsel, similar delay was not considered for declining the relief to the workman.

(2.) WITH respect, I do not accept this argument. The petitioners did not find it proper to challenge the award of the Labour Court till the year 2000 and the reason given is that another similarly situated workman was given benefit and the knowledge of the same was received by the petitioners at a late stage. This contention of the petitioners is to some extent similar to the case of the workmen in the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra). Here in this case the award had become stale and the petitioners found it proper to raise the dispute after long delay. The writ petition filed at a belated stage deserves to be dismissed.