This writ petition challenged an Industrial Tribunal award dismissing a workman's claim for reinstatement due to a 19-year delay. The court held that the delay and laches were fatal, citing the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and relevant Supreme Court precedents, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CWP No.11735 of 2013
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *******
CWP No.11735 of 2013 DATE OF DECISION :27.5.2013
Jugraj Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
In the first spell of service with the management from 1.4.1976 to 13.11.1981, when his services were terminated, the petitioner's dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh to answer the challenge as to the justification of termination by a written order. The Labour Court directed reinstatement on fresh appointment on daily wage basis but without back wages for the reason that the workman voluntarily remained absent from duty. Despite an order granting him fresh appointment, the workman apart from submitting joining report on 27.4.1987 did not actually join work. The S.D.E, Construction Sub Division No.6, Chandigarh sent a letter to the petitioner to join duty which he never did. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice on the management on 5.8.2006 for the first time, that is, after a gap of about 19 years.
The Labour Court has answered the reference against the
-2-
CWP No.11735 of 2013
petitioner on two counts firstly, on delay, and secondly, on failure to avail relief granted by the Labour Court in the first award dated 3.3.1987. Both the reasons assigned by the Labour Court are found germane to the issues involved.
The Labour Court has non-suited the workman on the ground of delay in raising claim. Though no limitation has been prescribed for bringing actions through Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 calling in question matters falling in Section 2-A yet delay and laches is an important factor to be considered by the labour Court in moulding the relief or to deny it altogether. A delay of about 19 years in seeking reinstatement or re-employment in a Government department where posts are governed by rules would be fatal to the action. The respondentdepartment cannot be surprised by a demand notice served after about 19 years asking it to accommodate a person who has slept over his rights, if any, for far too long especially when there was a previous award in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not expect magic or a windfall from Court. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others; (2000) 2 SCC 455, the Supreme Court in a matter involving 7 years' delay observed that a dispute which is stale could not be the subjectmatter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. In Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. Neelam ; (2005) 5 SCC 91, the Supreme Court have held that though Court cannot import a limitation period when the statute does not prescribe the same, it does not mean that irrespective of facts and circumstances of a given case, a stale claim must be entertained and relief granted by the Authority concerned under the Act.
No ground for interference is made out in the challenge to the
CWP No.11735 of 2013
-3-
impugned award dated 1.3.2013 in IDR No.116/2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh.
Dismissed.
27.5.2013 rajeev
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court was correct in dismissing the workman's claim for reinstatement due to a 19-year delay.
Whether the delay and laches were fatal considerations for the claim under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned award dismissing the claim as stale.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and othersApplied¶19
(2000) 2 SCC 455; · Who else cites this
Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank v. NeelamApplied¶19
(2005) 5 SCC 91 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jugraj Singh
The Chief Engineer
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
