LAWS(P&H)-2001-9-110

KHAZAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, JIND AND ANR.

Decided On September 03, 2001
Khazan Singh (Dead) Through His Legal Representatives Appellant
V/S
General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for modification of final paragraph of the award dated 17.6.1982 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the Haryana Roadways (hereinafter referred to as "the management"). He was working as a driver since 4.1.1969. His services were terminated after holding a departmental enquiry by order dated 23.9.1976. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was permissible under the rules. This appeal was dismissed on 22.8.1978. The petitioner, thereafter, served a demand notice on the basis of which the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After examining the entire matter, the Labour Court held as follows : -"In view of the discussion above the termination of the services of the workman is neither justified nor proper. The workman has given the notice of demand on 6th October, 1978, while his services were term mated on 23rd September, 1976, and he has not explained the delay in raising his demand for reinstatement which has taken two years time. The workman, in my view, is not entitled to the wages for the period from his date of termination to the raising of demand dated 6th October, 1978, leading to this reference. I, therefore, give my award that the workman is entitled to re -instate -ment with continuity of service and full back -wages excluding the period upto 6th October, 1978 from the date of his termination. The reference is answered and returned accordingly."

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the management/State has submitted that the delay has not been explained by the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in denying the backwages.