Shiv Kumar vs M/s. Jagsanpal Pharmaceutical Ltd.

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 29238-CII of 2012

Heard. This is application for condoning delay of 267 days in refilling the revision petition. It is alleged that the original paper book was misplaced in some decided briefs in the office of the counsel. However this averment, taken at face value, is not sufficient to explain long delay of almost nine months in re-filing the revision petition.

Dismissed.

CM No. 29239-CII of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case

Since delay in refilling the revision petition has not been condoned, the revision petition is liable to dismissal on this score alone. However, even on merits, the petitioner cannot succeed.

Petitioner was workman of respondent. He was removed from service on 06.06.1999. He raised industrial dispute regarding the same. Governor of Haryana in exercise of power u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Faridabad (in short, the ''Labour Court'') vide Government endorsement dated 30.06.2000. The Labour Court disposed of the said reference vide award dated 09.10.2000 Annexure P-1. Operative part of the said award is reproduced hereunder:

Address of the workman is incomplete. Notice served to him but not received back. So in these circumstances, it is made out that the workman cannot be served on given address. So ''No.-Dispute'' award is passed and the reference is answered accordingly.

Petitioner filed application on 27.08.2007 for restoration of the aforesaid reference in the Labour Court alleging that no notice was served on him on the address given in the demand notice whereas address, at which notice was sent, was not complete address and the petitioner never lived there. The petitioner learnt of the award Annexure P-1 on 22.08.2007 only.

The respondent contested the aforesaid application and controverted the averments made therein. The application was also alleged to be time barred. Objection to its maintainability was also raised.

Learned Labour Court vide order dated 03.02.2010 Annexure P-2 has dismissed the restoration application of the workman, who has therefore filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand of the petitioner taken in the restoration application as mentioned hereinbefore. However, the same cannot be accepted and has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. The workman in his cross-examination admitted that address written on notice dated 04.09.2000 Mark A was his correct address. The said notice was sent by post to the workman by the Labour Court. The notice was not received back undelivered. Consequently, the notice was deemed to have been received by the petitioner workman. Admittedly, the petitioner continued to reside there as per his own version till the year 2001. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not served with the notice in the reference. Moreover, the petitioner has taken contradictory stand. He has alleged that the address at which notice was sent was not complete address and the petitioner never lived there. In the witness box, the petitioner admitted the said address to be his correct address.

In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner in cross-examination admitted that he had served the demand notice through Advocate Mr. Bhardwaj and had been meeting the said Advocate who used to tell that the case was still pending at Chandigarh. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of award Annexure P-1 dated 09.10.2000 till August 2007 for about seven years. In this context it is significant to notice that the said award Annexure P-1 was also published in Government Gazette. In view thereof also, the petitioner could not claim ignorance of the said award.

There is also no ground why the petitioner remained silent for about seven long years. It is also not explained by the petitioner as to how he suddenly came to know of the award dated 09.10.2000 on 22.08.2007. Consequently, assertion of the petitioner that he learnt of the award on 22.08.2007 only cannot be accepted. Thus, examined from any angle, there was no ground for restoring the reference. Application for restoration filed by the petitioner is also barred by limitation. I find no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the Labour Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.