BALKRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-P-8) and the order dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure-P-14), passed by the respondent No. 1, vide which the reference as claimed by the petitioner-workman on his demand notice dated 17.08.1984 has been declined.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner-workman was appointed as a daily wage worker on 01.10.1980. He was terminated by respondent No. 3 on 01.01.1982 without assigning any reason or complying with the provisions as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. He raised a dispute by submitting demand notice dated 17.08.1984. No decision was conveyed to the petitioner-workman on the said demand notice. The matter was taken up by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Yamunanagar. The conciliation proceedings failed and a failure report was forwarded to the appropriate Government for taking decision thereon. The said demand notice was rejected by respondent No. 1, but no information was conveyed rejecting the reference on the said demand notice dated 15.03.1993. Similarly placed employees namely, Krishan Chand, Suresh Kumar, Om Parkash, and another Suresh Kumar also preferred demand notices. In those cases also, no information was forwarded. The petitioner-workman came to know that his demand notice has been rejected and therefore, preferred an appeal dated 08.07.1992. On consideration of this matter and other similarly placed employees, the Government made reference No. 5,6,7, and 8 of 1992 to the Labour Court for adjudication but no reference was made with regard to the demand notice submitted by the petitioner-workman. The petitioner-workman further persuaded his matter before the appropriate Government and ultimately an order dated 18.12.1998 (Annexure-P-8) was conveyed to the petitioner-workman wherein it was mentioned that the matter was examined and after consideration, no relevant facts were found to change the prior decision taken by the appropriate Government and therefore, his appeal was declined. Thereafter, a review application was preferred by the workman on 01.06.1999 which again was considered by the appropriate Government and the Government after examination of the said application, came to the conclusion that due to not finding the relevant record or considerable facts there was no need to change the prior decision taken by the Government. This decision dated 10.01.2002 was conveyed to the workman on 23.01.2002. On the basis of these facts, counsel for the petitioner contends that in the case of similarly placed employees, reference whereof was sent to the Labour Court, awards in their favour passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, in the year, 1999, whereas in the case of the petitioner-workman due to non reference being made to the Labour Court, the petitioner-workman has been deprived of his right for adjudication of the dispute. He, therefore, contends that a direction be issued to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State contends that the demand notice dated 17.08.1984 was considered by the appropriate Government and the same stood rejected, vide letter dated 16.10.1984 which fact has been admitted by the petitioner-workman in his writ petition as well as his subsequent appeal and the review application preferred by him. He contends that the cause of action arose to the petitioner-workman to approach this Court initially when his demand notice for reference was rejected by the appropriate Government on 16.10.1984 and even if the submissions as made by the petitioner that the same was not communicated to him, is accepted, the cause of action arose to him when order dated 18.12.1998 rejecting his appeal was conveyed to the petitioner-workman. Since, he has preferred the review application dated 01.06.1999, the same was also rejected on 23.01.2001 as by that time the records have been weeded out as it was a sole claim and there existed no industrial dispute which would fall within the purview of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, requiring the reference to Labour Court for adjudication which has been contended by counsel for the respondent that it is not a case where the petitioner-workman was not aware of the fate of his demand notice but is a case where the petitioner-workman, if he was so aggrieved, would have approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. Having failed to do so, the dispute, if any, which arose in the year, 1982, when his services were terminated on 01.01.1982, cannot at this belated stage after 20 years when he preferred the present writ petition, be said to be still alive and is now a stale dispute, if any.