THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner -State has challenged the Award dated 10.12.1991 passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon. The predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 9 was appointed as Sub Inspector, Co -operative Societies Haryana by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mohindergarh, vide order dated 2.2.1977 (Annexure P -1) on adhoc basis initially for a period of six months. He continued serving as such and his services were eventually terminated by order dated 9.12.1980 (Annexure P -2). After about 8 years, he sought a reference claiming to be a workman and further asserting that his services had been illegally terminated. In reply, the petitioner -State took the plea that the predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 9 was not a workman and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, as well as the plea of delay. The Labour Court, however, rejected the plea of the petitioner -State by holding that the Cooperative Societies fell within the definition of the word 'industry', and since the predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 9 had completed more than 240 days, it allowed the claim application and ordered his re -instatement with continuity of service and full back -wages.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported as Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab Chandigarh v. Ashwani Kumar, : 2004 (2) RSJ 351, wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty, : 2000 (1) SLR 636 (SC), it was held that a demand notice served after 9 years would be barred by delay. Apart therefrom, counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Labour Court fell into fundamental error in coming to the conclusion that the predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 9 was employed in a Cooperative Society. As per him, he was a Class III employee of the Haryana Government governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules and, therefore, the very claim was not maintainable.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, question regarding delay would not be determinative in this case. What would be relevant is the fact that the predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 9 was not an employee of any Cooperative Society but was a Class III government servant having been appointed as Sub Inspector by the Cooperative Societies Haryana. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the Award passed by the Labour Court Gurgaon dated 10.12.1991 is set aside. No order as to costs.