PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 30.3.2009, Annexure P -4, whereby the 2nd respondent had declined the prayer made by the petitioner to refer the dispute raised in terms of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, referred to as "the Act"), the present writ petition has been filed in this Court with a prayer to quash the same and passing a direction to the said respondent to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court for adjudication. In a nut shell, it is claimed that the petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis by the 5th respondent in the year 1987. Though he continued to work as such and completed 240 days in a calendar year, however disengaged from the service on 30.3.1988. Some of his juniors were re -engaged pursuant to the orders Annexures P -1 and P -2 passed by this Court. He being a poor person and not in a position to bear the litigation expenses, could not approach this Court for the redressal of his grievance. He alongwith other similarly situated workmen however had raised the dispute in terms of the provisions contained under the Act before the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent vide Annexure P -3. The said respondent, however, declined the prayer to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court vide impugned order, Annexure P -4.

(2.) THE 1st, 2nd and the 3rd respondents when put to notice, have contested the writ petition. Their stand as emerges from the perusal of reply to the writ petition is that the dispute raised by the petitioner when examined, it transpired that the petitioner had worked only w.e.f. 26.6.1985 to 25.4.1988 on a time bound job and on its completion, he was retrenched after serving him with 30 days notice, dated 30.3.1988 and on payment of retrenchment compensation amounting to ?? 728.25. Since the petitioner had raised the industrial dispute by way of demand notice, dated 5.2.2007, i.e. after about 18 years of his disengagement, his prayer to refer the dispute to Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court was rightly declined as with the passage of time, the dispute had faded away and without there being existence of any fresh cause of action in favour of the petitioner, there was no question of existence of any dispute after the lapse of such a long period of 18 years from 25.4.1988, the day when the petitioner was disengaged from service till 5.2.2007, the day when the petitioner raised the demand notice. The decision taken by the appropriate Government not to refer the case to Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court is supported by the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 398 of 2001, titled M.C., Paonta Sahib Vs. State of H.P. and others, relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1619 of 2007, titled Kamlesh Vs. State of H.P. and others.

(3.) THE judgments Annexures P -1 and P -2 have been rendered by this Court in view of the facts of those cases and the same have no application in the case in hand.