DIRECTOR FOOD AND SUPPLIES PUNJAB Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman-respondent No. 1 was working as Chaukidar on daily wages with usual break in service with the petitioner. He had been given employment with effect from June, 1985 and that his services were dispensed with on August 30, 1987. The demand notice dated April 13, 1996 was served upon the petitioner admittedly after a delay of 9 years approximately. The reference was made by the competent authority vide order dated October 28, 1986. The petitioner took a specific plea that the services of the workman had been dispensed with on August 30, 1987, therefore, the claim of the claimant suffers from inordinate delay. This plea has been noticed by the Labour Court in para No.3 of the award but strange enough no finding in respect thereof has been given by the Labour Court. However, on all other counts the findings have been returned in favour of the workman and resultantly the reference has been answered in favour of the workman by ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the award upon two pivotal grounds i.e. whether the Labour Court was justified in entertaining and accepting the claim of the workman after an inordinate delay of 9 years which has not been justified. In this regard specific question of law has been raised for consideration of this Court. Secondly the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court has also been raised but no question of law has been formulated for consideration of this Court. It may be noticed that the issue in respect of jurisdiction has been framed by the Labour Court as issue No.2 and the Labour Court has observed that the respondent-petitioner did not bring any evidence in support of this issue nor the issue was contested/pressed during the course of arguments as such the issue has been decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the workman has not justified the delay of 9 years in claiming, the relief after an inordinate delay of 9 years. He has pointed out from the copy of the demand notice annexed as Annexure P-1/T wherein no such plea or explanation has been taken by the workman. He has also pointed out para No.4 of the Preliminary Objection contained in the written statement filed before the Labour Court, whereby such objection has been taken by the petitioner. This plea has also been taken in the present writ petition. However, while submitting written statement before this Court, the workman has tried to explain the delay and that the stand taken is that the said delay stands explained before the learned Labour Court. It has been further pleaded that once the reference has been made the learned Labour Court is within its jurisdiction to mould the relief and that the claim of the workman cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay alone.