LACHMAN Vs. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India against the order of learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh Shimla dated 15.05.2012 whereby learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh while exercising powers under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 refused to refer the dispute to Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal Himachal Pradesh for adjudication.

(2.) IT is pleaded that petitioner was appointed as daily waged worker in H.P.P.W.D. department in the year 1996. In the year 1999 service of petitioner was dis -engaged. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner filed O.A.(D) No. 48/99 before H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on dated 27.11.2001 disposed of O.A.(D) No. 48/99 with the directions that service of petitioner would be re -engaged as per his seniority as and when the work and funds would be available. Thereafter demand notice was issued by petitioner and matter could not be settled in conciliation proceedings before Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer and thereafter the matter was examined by learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh under Section 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh held that petitioner had raised demand notice after a lapse of about 6 years. Learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh further held that petitioner did not keep the matter alive during intervening period and learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh held that the matter had faded away with the passage of time. Learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh further held that demand notice is prima facie vexatious and frivolous. Learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh further held that there is no justification to refer the dispute to learned Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal Himachal Pradesh for adjudication. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh petitioner filed present civil writ petition with the prayer to accept civil writ petition as mentioned in relief clause.

(3.) PER contra separate response filed on behalf of non -petitioner No. 3 pleaded therein that demand notice is prima facie vexatious and frivolous. It is further pleaded that petitioner had left the job without any intimation to the non -petitioners and non -petitioner No. 3 has not retrenched service of petitioner. It is further pleaded that due to own conduct of petitioner present civil writ petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that petitioner cannot claim parity with others who have discharged their duties with punctuality and sincerity. It is further pleaded that present dispute is stale dispute and same cannot be referred to Labour Court for adjudication. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition sought.