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

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1998. He was retrenched on 2.4.2005. Petitioner raised industrial dispute in the year 2012. The Labour Officer -cum -Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to the Labour Commissioner on 26.12.2013. The Labour Commissioner has refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the demand notice was raised after 7 years.

(2.) PETITIONER has specifically averred in his demand notice that Sher Singh and Raj Kumar were engaged/retained by the Department as Beldar, though junior to him, and they are still working. This aspect has been overlooked by the Labour Commissioner while passing order dated 8.5.2014. The employer was liable to issue notice to the petitioner before the engagement of new hand. Thus, there is a breach of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Department has also retained persons junior to petitioner while retrenching him in the year 2005. The demand notice should be raised within a reasonable period. But in this case, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, mentioned herein above, delay cannot be held to be inordinate.

(3.) MOREOVER , the issue of delay can always be considered by the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal at the time of answering the reference by moulding relief.