PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) De-Linked from CWP No. 1912 of 2016 and taken up separately for disposal.

(2.) It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.1 on daily wage basis in the year 1996. Her services were orally terminated by the respondent No.3, without complying the provisions of Section 25-G and F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the year 2011. The petitioner raised Demand/industrial dispute on 07.05.2012, against respondent No.3 for making reference before respondent No.2 but he has failed to make reference till today despite the fact that the matters of similarly situated workmen have already been referred to the Labour Court for determination.

(3.) The question is-whether the petitioner is caught by delay and laches, is a question to be determined by respondent No.2.