STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SH KALI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE services of respondent Kali Dass -workman allegedly terminated by the petitioner-management on February 29, 1981. He served a demand notice more than seven years thereafter on August 20, 1991. The dispute was referred by the Government on May 7, 1992, to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the Management terminated the services of workmen or not? If so to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled? The case of the respondent-workman before the Labour Court was that he had been engaged on muster roll on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 14.00 per day as pump Operator and Chowkidar at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per day. His services were terminated on February 29, 1984, without any notice charge-sheet or enquiry or retrenchment compensation. The case of the petitioner-management was that the workman had not even put in 240 days and in fact he remained absent and his services were not terminated. He had not been given any appointment letter and no order terminating his services was ever issued. Further case is that the Labour Court did not discuss the details of evidence led by the workman but on the basis of the evidence led by the management that the workman had worked for 240 days as Pump Driver from June 2, 1983, to December 31, 1983, and 57 days as Chowkidar from January 4, 1984, to February 29, 1984 and in this manner the workman had completed 240 days as a workman. The Labour Court held that it did not matter whether the workman had worked as a Pump Operator or Chowkidar. The fact remains that he had worked with the management for more than 240 days it was also held that it was not understand as to why his designation was changed from Pump Operator to Chowkidar as it was not the case that the post of Pump Driver had been abolished or any other Pump Driver had come to join. It was still further held that since there was a violation of the provisions of Section 25-f of the Industrial Disputes Act as no retrenchment compensation was paid the termination was illegal and the workman was entitled to reinstatement. So far as back wages are concerned, these were confined from the date of the demand notice i. e. August 20, 1991, till reinstatement. The management has challenged the award dated May 5, 1994, which was later on published in the official gazette.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if respondent-workman is deemed to have worked for 240 days, no relief should have been given by the Labour Court as the demand notice itself was given more than 7 years after the alleged termination of service. In fact the State Government should not have made the reference to the Labour Court at all. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Balwant Singh v. Labour Court Bhatinda and Ors. , 1996 Lab. I. C. 45. In that case, the demand notice has been given after five years of the alleged termination and the Labour Court had declined to give any relief to the petitioner. The Division Bench upheld the Labour Court award on the ground that because of the delay in raising the dispute, the workman had disentitled himself to any relief. He also cited the authority reported as Punjab State Electricity Board v. State of Punjab, 1993 (1) S. C. T. 103, in which it was held that laches on the part of the workman would disentitle him to any relief. It was observed that the workman could not be put of a higher pedestal than an ordinary Government employee or an employee elsewhere. If a Government employee or any other employees is to challenge his termination before a civil Court limitation period is three years provided under the Limitation Act. The consequence of delay in approaching the management can be that in the meantime another workman might have been appointed or the services of the person being reinstated may not be required at all. Same was the proposition of law laid down in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhatinda and Anr. , (1991-2)100 P. L. R. 591; and Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and Anr. , 1991 (2)S. L. R. 487. Even the apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist and Ors. v. The State of Bombay and Anr. , A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1617, observed "if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference". Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that even if it is held that there was a mere technical irregularity in complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act but otherwise the termination was justified reinstatement could not have been ordered. He relied upon C. W. P. No. 5696 of 1986 (Prem Chand v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr.) decided on January 25, 1991, as also observations made in 6 1993 (1) S. C. T. 103, (supra ). On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-workman argued that the delay in raising an industrial dispute cannot be fatal and the, relief can only be moulded if there is delay. In the present case, the back wages had not been awarded from the date of termination but had been awarded from the date of the issue of the demand notice. It was also argued that violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would entail reinstatement ipso facto.