MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.9.2001 passed by the learned single Judge, who has been pleased to allow the writ petition as a result of which the award passed in favour of the appellant has been set aside by which he had been ordered to be reinstated in service after 12 years of his termination.

(2.) THE learned single Judge has been pleased to set aside the award on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant -workman who had raised the dispute after 12 years of his termination. The appellant -workman, prior to his termination, had discharged the duties in the service of the State of Rajasthan in Large Scale Sheep Breeding Farm at Fatehpur in the District Sikar after working for a period of only 2 years, after which his service had been dispensed with. The respondent State had come up with the case that it had not terminated the services of the appellant but it is the appellant workman who, of his own accord, had quit the job and had not turned up for his duties. The appellant -workman, after 12 years of his termination, woke -up from his slumber and initiated a reference for adjudication of a dispute wherein he stated that his services have been terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had also set up a plea that he had not quit the job willingly but he was checked out of the service. The Labour Court, on scrutiny of the evidence on record led by the contesting parties, recorded a finding that the respondent -State had not complied with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, his termination was bad in the eye of law. He, therefore, was ordered to be reinstated in service but was denied back wages by the Labour Court. The respondent State of Rajasthan, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the learned single Judge challenging the award passed by the Labour Court wherein it was contended that the industrial dispute having been raised after 12 years of termination, was not fit to be entertained by the Labour Court and the Labour Court, in view of the various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, should have taken into account the unusual delay on the part of the workman in raising the dispute about his termination. The learned single Judge, vide the impugned order, was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the management on the ground of unusual delay on the part of the workman in raising this dispute and has also drawn the inference in view of the evidence on record that the appellant -workman was not interested in the job and that was the reason why he did not turn up to raise the question of his termination for 12 long years. The appellant -workman had relied upon a medical certificate in order to explain the unusual delay in raising the dispute but the same has been disbelieved as this had not been produced before the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court, thus, was quashed and set aside by the learned single Judge, against which this special appeal has been preferred.

(3.) BUT having perused these judgments we are sure that the ratio of these judgments is altogether different. In the matter of Shahji v. Executive Engineer and Ors. (supra), the learned Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court has merely held that if an award of reinstatement is passed after a long delay, then the relief can be suitably moulded by granting compensation but it has nowhere been held that even if the matter has been examined by the Labour Court on merit, the question of delay would be immaterial. On the contrary, there are several latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court, wherein relief of reinstatement has been denied on the ground of unusual delay in initiating the reference. It is no doubt true that if the workman had initiated the reference within a reasonable period of his termination and the decision in regard to reference of dispute to the Labour Court, were lying dormant with the Government, then the delay could not be attributed to the workman so as to treat it as his lapse and laches. But, in the instant matter, when the appellant had come up with the plea that the respondent -workman had left the job on his own and his services were not terminated, after which he failed to raise the dispute for more than 12 years, the question of delay definitely becomes relevant and should have been gone into by the Labour Court. Under this premise, if the learned single Judge has been pleased to allow the writ petition setting aside the award of the Labour Court for having raised the dispute after 12 years of his termination, we do not feel that it is a fit case for interference with the impugned order.