RAMESH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged Annexure PJ, dated 27.1.2000. Claim of the petitioner for referring the dispute for adjudication has been declined vide this annexure on the ground that the same has been raised after a lapse of more than 9 J years without any justification for the long delay.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this writ petition, it was not disputed that petitioner was engaged as a daily and rated mazdoor (labourer) by respondent No. 1. His services were terminated on 31.10.1988. Petitioner alleges that it was without following due process of law. According to respondents, petitioner was engaged for a particular purpose against a particular work. After the purpose/work came to an end, his services have been rightly and in accordance with law terminated. Therefore, neither Section 25 -G nor 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) Petitioner further claims that in the year 1994, respondents reengaged services of 5 workmen. He represented to the authorities for his re -engagement also in March and November, 1995, but without any consequence. His further case is that more than 100 workers were re -engaged by the respondents, but petitioner remained where he was, i.e. out of job. In this background, a legal notice was got served by him through his Advocate on the Chief General Manager (Telecom), Telecommunication Circle, H.P., Shimla, as well as on Telecom District Manager, Hamirpur District, Hamirpur vide Annexure PG. This also did not yield any result. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were undertaken by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) II, Chandigarh. He submitted his conciliation -cum -failure report to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide Annexure PH, on 15.9.1999. Instead of matter being referred for adjudication in accordance with law, reference was declined vide Annexure PJ as noted hereinabove.