Bihar Jharkhand Sales Representative Union vs Hindustan Antibiotic Limited and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application is directed against the impugned Award dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/07.

The reference has been answered against the petitioner by holding that it is wholly stale claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was dismissed on 15th July, 1983 and had immediately raised an industrial dispute after two years. Vide Annexure-1 the Management was asked to appear during the course of conciliation process before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Patna. But no fault can be attributed to the petitioner if the reference was made in the year 1996 after delay of 13 years and it should not be taken against the petitioner. However, learned Industrial Court has opined otherwise and made the petitioner responsible for non-explanation of the delay.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned Award. From perusal of the impugned Award, it appears that the petitioner was a trainee Medical Representative under the Respondents-Hindustan Antibiotic Limited and after remaining for two years as a trainee he was discontinued from service on 15th July, 1983 itself. The present reference was made to the Labour Court through notification dated 8th June, 1996 after 13 years of the discontinuance of the service. During the course of the proceedings of the reference, however, it has been recorded by the learned Labour Court that no evidence was brought on record to justify the making of industrial reference made after a long delay of 13 years from the date of his discontinuance of service. The learned court has accordingly held by referring to judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, that the instant delay has not been explained by the workman during examination in court and therefore petitioner''s case is stale and raised after a gross delay.

I do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, Dhanbad as the facts itself demonstrate that after 1983, the reference was raised after a delay of 13 years by Notification dated 8th June, 1996 and the delay could not be explained by the workman-petitioner during the course of the industrial proceedings before the industrial Court. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.