GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS AMRITSAR Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the award dated 8.11.1994. Respondent no.2 workman served a demand notice (Annexure P -1) alleging that he had worked with the petitioner from 13.8.1982 till 7.7.1983 and thus having completed 240 days. Termination of his services was therefore illegal as no procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was ever followed.

(2.) EVEN though the services were allegedly terminated in 1983 the demand notice was served on 18.6.1991 i.e after the lapse of 8 years. The petitioner's stand before Labour Court was that there was no retrenchment of the petitioner and his services were contractual in nature limited to the periods of engagements for which the requisite chart was furnished. It was pleaded that in this period of one year the engagement was periodic with notional breaks. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that in fact there was no retrenchment as the workman was engaged subsequent to this period as well i.e in August 1983 which is after the period of alleged termination and then worked for the following periods which is after the alleged termination thereby falsifying the plea of retrenchment.

(3.) ON due consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there is substance in what the petitioner states. Firstly the demand notice was served after a lapse of 8 years. Even though it should not be construed to be a fatality to the cause yet the workman is still under an obligation to explain as to what prevented him from raising such a dispute within a reasonable time. Procedure such as termination invite immediate consequences for a workman which cannot be ignored for an inordinately long time as it may not be possible for the management to keep alive an assignment for a workman who seeks redemption of his cause at such a belated stage. Therefore, in cases where inordinate delay is caused a vested right also accrues to the management to resist the re -entry of a workman. That apart it was evident before the Labour Court that the services of the petitioner continued to be engaged by the petitioner for as long as almost 5 years after the alleged date of termination and this itself should have been a sufficient reason to hold that there was no retrenchment of services. The demand notice would indicate the date of retrenchment/ termination as 7.7.1983 whereas the stand of the respondents clearly demonstrated engagement of the services for the period from 1.8.83 to 25.8.1983 and thereafter for various periods indicated above.