Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board vs Manjit Kaur

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the order of Reference made by respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that :-

i) Demand is belated one;

ii) There was already a compromise and settlement between the parties and matter cannot be revived after a long period.

Taking the second point first, regarding the compromise/settlement between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on Annexures P/3 and P/4 attached with this writ petition. Annexure P/3 is the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 2.7.1987. It is as under :-

"Enclosed please find copy of letter dated 30.6.1987 from the authorised representative of your workmen. Your are advised to maintain status-quo till the disposal of case."

At annexure P/4, there is another order of Assistant Labour Commissioner. It is an under :-

"It is in continuation of this office Memo No. 3223, dated the 2nd July, 1987, the same stands cancelled after arguments."

Basing argument on these two orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a compromise between the parties and, therefore, stay was granted. However, no compromise/settlement is brought in writing and nothing can be inferred from these two orders that there was compromise between the parties.

Regarding delay, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay is of 8 years. He had relied or the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, . In that case, it was held that it cannot be said that complaint made after a lapse on 7 years gave rise to industrial dispute or industrial dispute could be apprehended. The reference was held to be bad both on the ground of delay and lack of industrial dispute existing or apprehended. In that case, the workman was removed after disciplinary proceedings against him but had raised the dispute after a long time contending that/similarly situated persons were reinstated.

In the case of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, it has been held by Supreme Court that there is no limitation prescribed for raising the dispute and the Limitation Act is not applicable and when dispute of limitation was not raised, court could mould the relief and in that case 60% back wages were awarded because of delay.

In the present case, workman has tried to explain the delay in the demand notice itself. Copy of the demand notice is Annexure P/5 with the writ petition. It is the case of the workman in the demand notice that her relations with her in-laws had become strained and she became mentally retarded and lost memory and remained under mental treatment for 6-7 years and forgot that she had to follow the case for illegal termination of service.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that no medical certificate or document showing medical treatment has been placed. It may be stated at this stage that what respondent No. 3 had to do was to see from the demand notice and reply, if any, if industrial dispute existed or not. It would not delve into the matter further by exercising the role of Labour Court. What the petitioner is stating may be correct or respondent No. 1 may be correct but the facts have to be decided by the Labour Court after leading evidence and not by respondent No. 3.

Considering all this aspect, we do not find that respondent No. 3 has erred in passing the impugned order.

This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed