RAM KALAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing communication, dated March 29, 2001 (Annexure P2) vide which Special Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Haryana, informed him about the Governments decision to reject the demand notice sent by him on the ground of delay and laches. He has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to make a reference of the dispute raised by him to the Labour Court.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as Running Kaimdar in the services of Kaithal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter described as the Mill) on daily wages with effect from November 18, 1990. He was paid off with effect from May 16, 1991. He was again appointed on the same terms and conditions with effect from February 4, 1992 in the Boiler Department of the Mill. There he continued up to February 5, 1993. His service was terminated along with other workmen when the chain of RBC in the Boiler Section was broken. Demand notice, dated January 22, 1992, sent by him in the matter of previous termination of service was rejected by the State Government vide communication, dated March 30, 1992 (Annexure P3) on the ground that he had worked in the service of the Mill for less than 240 days. After the termination of his service with effect from February 5, 1993, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 426 of 1995 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (senior Division), Kaithal. The same was dismissed vide judgment, dated May 11, 2000 (Annexure R1). The learned Additional Civil Judge (senior Division), Kaithal, held that the termination of the service of the workman was legally correct. He further held that the suit was not maintainable because the petitioner had already moved the Labour Court.

(3.) Having failed to get relief from the civil Court, the petitioner served demand notice, dated May 12, 2000/July 12, 2000, upon the mill. This time the State Government refused to make a reference on the ground of delay and laches. This was conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P2, the relevant extract of which is reproduced below: