PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 10.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the respondents passed on 21.10.2001 (P-6) declining reference to the Labour Court in pursuance of demand notice for violation of Sec. 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act').

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the appellant was engaged as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on daily wages on 01.06.1992 and his services were terminated on 30.12.1992. He claimed that Sec. 25-F of the Act should have been complied with. The pleaded case of the appellant is that provisions of Sec. 25-G and 25-H of the Act had been violated and persons junior to him were retained in service or re-employed in the year 2006, which conferred the right upon him to be considered for re-employment as per Sec. 25-H of the Act.

(3.) In the reply, the stand of the respondents is that, in fact, the appellant stopped attending his duty from 30.12.1992 of his own, which is evident from the fact that he never represented to the authorities even after more than a decade. The appropriate Government has accordingly declined to make a reference to the Labour Court on the ground that it suffers from unexplained delay of about 17 years. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on para 21 of the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another 2011 (1) SCT 465 and concluded that there no reference could be made in the absence of any valid explanation for the delay. Moreover, the appellant was employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on daily wage basis and he did not complete 240 days. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from concluding para of the judgment, which reads thus: "After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, I am of the opinion that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner in his demand notice has averred that he was employed as Mali-cum- Chowkidar on daily wage basis. He admitted that he was not a workman having not completed 240 days but was entitled to the protection under Sec. 25G and 25H of the Act. The respondents in the reply disputed the status of the petitioner as a workman and had said that he was merely working on casual basis and the demand had been raised belatedly. Sec. 25H of the Act reads as under:-