STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was inducted into the service of Haryana Roadways, Rohtak as a conductor in 1969. Consequent upon, the issuance of a charge-sheet dated 30.1.1992, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated by an order dated 9.7.1992. Dis-satisfied with the order of has termination, the respondent-workman issued a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 21.1.1999. On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute raised by the respondent-workman was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court). The reference Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman by holding that the services of the respondent-workman had been terminated without holding a regular domestic enquiry. The aforesaid conclusion drawn by the Labour Court is not subject matter of challenge before us.

(2.) The only contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner, while impugning the award of the Labour Court dated 13.5.2002 is that, no industrial dispute existed between the petitioner-management and the respondent-workman at the time the dispute raised by the respondent-workman was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. In this behalf, reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court inThe Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K. P. Madhavankutty & Ors., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 839=2000(3) SLJ 22 (SC). The solitary contention in order to support the aforesaid claim of the petitioner-management is that while services of the respondent-workman were terminated on 9.7.1992, he had issued a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act only on 21.1.1999 /'. e. about seven years after his services have been terminated. It is the vehement contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner-management, that no industrial dispute can be deemed to have been subsisting at the time when the dispute was raised by the respondent-workman.

(3.) In order to repudiate the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, that the respondent-workman had filed a statutory appeal challenging the order of his termination dated 9.7.1992 on 17.10.1992 and that the aforesaid appeal was disposed of on 20.10.1997, therefore, without any delay the respondent-workman had served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act on 21.1.1999. Learned Counsel for the respondent-workman has also invited our attention to the observations rendered by the Apex Court in Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1351=1999(3) SLJ 219 (SC) as follows :