M/S Popular Gun Works vs State Of J&K And Others

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J

In this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the award dated 30.04.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). By virtue of impugned award the Tribunal decided the Industrial disputes raised by the respondents in a reference made to it by the Government in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), after holding the termination of the respondent No. 6 by the petitioner as illegal and contrary to the provision of Section 25F of the Act.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-

The respondents raised an industrial dispute, challenging the termination by the petitioner on various grounds. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal at Jammu. Two questions came to be referred, which were:-

i. Whether the termination of services of Sh. Awadh Choudhary is legally justified?

ii. If not, what relief he is entitled to?

It appears that after the reference, the parties are put to notice for appearance before the Tribunal, pursuant to which the respondent No. 6 filed his statement of claims. The petitioner, however, after causing his appearance on some hearings through its General Manager, did not contest the matter and were accordingly, proceeded ex-parte on 22.03.2011.

The case set up before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was working as Gun Fitter in the respondent's factory since 2005 and that on 08.06.2007, he was thrown out of the employment without assigning any reasons and without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 25F of the Act. It was alleged that no notice was served upon the respondent, nor were the wages paid, as was the requirement of the said section. Evidence was led ex-parte by the respondent, in which the averments made by the respondent No. 6 was supported and buttressed by the witnesses. Finally by virtue of order impugned dated 20.04.2012, the reference was answered in favour of the respondent workman and it was held that the termination by the petitioner-management was in gross violation of the provisions of Section of the 25F of the Act.

The Tribunal further held the respondent No. 6 entitled to reinstatement on the post he was holding at the time of his termination without consequential benefits including back wages to the extent of 50%.

The present petition, challenging the order impugned was filed on 02.04.2014, after a lapse of approximately two years. Clearly, the petition ought to have been filed within a reasonable time from the date of passing the order impugned, which has not been done in the present case. As is evident that the petitioner herein had participated in the proceedings for some time before the Tribunal and thereafter absented themselves, resulting in an ex-parte order against the petitioner.

No satisfactory explanation at all has been reflected in the writ petition, as to why there was a delay in filing of the present petition. Clearly, the petition suffers from delay and laches and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Even otherwise, the Tribunal appears to have correctly returned a finding that no notice was ever served upon the respondent in terms of provisions of Section 25F which were in gross violation of the scheme of the Act. In those circumstances, the finding recorded cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or unjustified or perverse.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs. 30,000/-, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month and to be released by the Registry in favour of the claimant upon deposition. The respondent-claimant is also held entitled to interest @ 6% on the awarded amount from the date of the award.

It is made clear that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent workman is stated to have passed away and his legal heir including his wife has been incorporated as party respondents. The amount awarded is directed to be released, as and when the same is deposited, in favour of the legal heir(s) of the deceased workman, after proper identification and verification.

Disposed of accordingly, along with connected applications.