AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 26.2.1999, copy Annexure P-4, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and 50% back wages from the date of the reference i.e. 11.5.1994 till the date of his reinstatement.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to various dates. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on 7.10.1985 as a Watchman. His services were terminated on 28.7.1986. He raised an Industrial dispute by way of demand notice dated 21.10.1989. The Government vide its order dated 29.11.1991, copy Annexure P-1, rejected the reference. The reasons given for rejection are as under :-
"Your aforementioned request letter was examined and after going through it and the same being devoid of any merits, the Government does not consider it fit to bring any change in its earlier order."
There is another order dated 4.8.1992. Counsel for the petitioner states that it is an order in appeal. Copy of the same is Annexure P-2. The request for making a reference was again rejected vide said order. The reasons given in the same are as under :-
"Your aforementioned request letter was examined and after going through it and the same being devoid of any merits, the Govt. does not consider it fit to bring any change in its earlier order."
The review application against the same was also dismissed. The respondent filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 10953 of 1992 challenging the order of the Govt. It was dismissed on 25.8.1992. Copy of the judgment of the Division Bench dismissing the writ petition is produced at Annexure P-3. Thereafter the Government on 11.5.1994 on the same demand notice decided to refer the matter to the Labour Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the matter was decided by this Court in a writ petition, it cannot be opened again. So far as this point is concerned, it may be stated that this Court in the earlier writ petition has not given any direction except dismissing the writ petition holding that the reasons given by the Government for not making a reference cannot be said to be capricious or arbitrary. The reasons given by the Division Bench can be reproduced as under :-
"As can be seen from the order, the Government was of the view that as the petitioner had raised the dispute after more than three years from the date of which his services were terminated there was no reason to make a reference. In our opinion, the reason given by the Government for the making a reference cannot be said to be capricious or arbitrary. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed."
Counsel for the respondent argued that the reference can be made subsequently on the same demand notice. He has also raised some preliminary objections that the writ petition is signed by the Secretary of the petitioner and therefore, it is not maintainable. He has also argued that the order of reference made by the Government is not challenged in the writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the office order which he has produced at page 32 of the paper book of this writ petition. It is dated 18.2.1987. By the said order, the Secretary of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation is authorised to sign and verify on behalf of the Corporation all plaints, written statements, petitions, affidavits and other documents connected with the legal proceedings. He has also shown to me the decision taken by the petitioner for filing the writ petition. On 16.8.1999, the Managing Director, Mr. Kundu has ordered that the appeal be filed immediately and stay be obtained on order of the Labour Court. He has also ordered that Mr. Ahlawat be engaged on normal charges (as a counsel). Therefore, the second point regarding proper filing of the writ petition has to be answered in favour of the petitioner.
The question remains to be seen is whether the award passed by the Labour Court on the second reference is maintainable or not ? Except this no other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not shown to me that the order rejecting to make reference can operate as res-judicata. When it is not shown there is no reason to treat it as such. Moreover, the respondent had not given a second demand notice. Therefore, also the principles of res-judicata cannot apply.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the demand is belated one. The termination of the services of the respondent took place on 28.7.1986. The demand notice is dated 21.10.1989. The Labour Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in Ram Chander v. State of Haryana 1999(1) SCT 141 (P&H) (DB) and held that a dispute raised within five years can be said to be raised within a reasonable time. I need not go into the finding of the Bench in that judgment in view of the fact that this question had been decided by the judgment in the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, and judgment of the Division Bench (in which I was a Member) in the case of Surjit Singh v. P.O. LC and another, reported as 2001(1) RSJ 413.
Even considering the question of delay, this case is not such which requires to be thrown out on that ground. The case cannot be said to have become stale.
Regarding back wages also, the Labour Court has awarded 50% only that to from the date of reference.
In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.