Delay in raising a dispute does not preclude consideration of reinstatement or compensation, and the court has the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as, "workman") has laid challenge to Award dated 20.7.2017 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala (HP) (hereinafter referred to as, "Tribunal") in Reference No. 568/2016, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the workman in lieu of the back wages, seniority, past service benefits as well as other consequential service benefits.

2. Precisely the facts as emerge from the record are that the Appropriate Government made following reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act') to the Tribunal :

"Whether alleged termination of services of Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Narain Singh Vill. Strehar, PO Dharampur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, H.P. during 9/1999. by (1) The Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Nirman Bhavan, Shimla-2, (2) the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, - Division Dharampur, Distt. Mandi, H.P. who had worked as beldar on daily wages basis during 11/1998 to 9/1999, only for 285.5 days and has raised her industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 29.5.2015 after more than 16 years allegedly without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period stated as above and delay of more than 16 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?"

3. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that she was engaged by the authorities on daily wage basis on Muster Roll with effect from 11/1998. She continued to work till 9/1999, as such, she had completed 240 days. The workman alleged that her services were unlawfully terminated by the respondents verbally with effect from 9/1999 without issuing one month's notice and retrenchment compensation, as envisaged under Section 25F of the Act. The workman claimed before learned Tribunal that since the respondents violated provisions of Section 25 of the Act, her oral termination deserves to be set aside. While placing on record factum with regard to retention of her juniors at the time of her retrenchment, workman also alleged that the principle of 'last come, first go' was also not followed by the respondents. She further claimed that after her termination, respondents engaged many persons, who subsequently worked as daily wage Beldars but at no point in time, opportunity, if any, was ever afforded to her for re-employment, as such, action of the respondents, which is in sheer violation of the provisions contained under Section 25H of the Act, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, respondents by way of a written reply to the aforesaid claim put forth by the workman, refuted the same on the ground of maintainability as well as delay and laches. Though the respondents admitted the factum with regard to workman's engagement in the respondent-Department as a Daily Wager with effect from 11/1998, but claimed that she intermittently worked upto September, 1999, whereafter, she herself abandoned the job, as such, there was no obligation on its part to comply with the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Act. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the claim of the workman on the ground of delay and laches and claimed before learned Tribunal that since demand notice was issued after a considerable delay of sixteen years of the alleged retrenchment, no relief, if any, can be granted to the workman.

5. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties arrived at a conclusion that the services of the workman were illegally terminated without notice but having taken note of the fact that the workman raised dispute after sixteen years of her