(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner claims that he had worked as a Labourer on daily wages with the Haryana State Electricity Board from March 1981 to Jan. 4, 1983. He was retrenched without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter he was employed on Nov. 1, 1994 for a period of two weeks. His services were terminated on Nov. 16, 1994. Aggrieved by the termination, the petitioner issued a demand notice, alleging that the action in terminating the service was illegal. He claimed reinstatement "with continuity of service with full back wages for the period of forced unemployment...." A copy of this demand notice is at Annexure P3 with the Writ Petition.
(2.) The matter was considered by the appropriate Government after obtaining comments from the Board. Vide order dated June 21, 1995 the petitioner's claim was rejected with the observation that his "services were terminated on 4.1.1983....." and that he had "served the demand notice on 17.1.1995 after 11 years...." It was further observed that he was not "able to explain the delay in raising the dispute...." After rejection of the petitioner's request, the petitioner claims to have again submitted a representation to the Labour Commissioner. Vide order dated Oct. 25, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P8 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that his application dated May 31, 1999 had been "considered and found not feasible of acceptance....." Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He prays that the order dated June 21, 1995, a copy of which is at Annexure P5, and the order dated Oct. 25, 1999, a copy has been produced as Annexure P8, be quashed.
(3.) We have heard Mr. J.S. Maanipur, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that there is no limitation for a workman to raise an industrial dispute. Thus, even if a workman approaches the authority after a lapse of 20 years, it cannot refuse to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported as Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-cum-proceesing Service Society Ltd., 1999(2) Service Cases Today 667.