Point of Law: Appropriate Government as well as Tribunal can go into the question of staleness of the dispute and depending upon facts of each case, an appropriate Government can reject reference of an industrial dispute to learned Tribunal on ground that same is stale.

JUDGMENT :

By way of the present petition, the petitioner, has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in Reference No.33 of 2016, titled as Shayamanand Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla, H.P. & another, decided on 30.06.2017, in terms whereof the reference which was made by the appropriate Government to the said Court, has been answered by the learned Tribunal by dismissing the claim of the petitioner/workman.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication:

“Whether alleged termination of service of Shri Shyamamanand S/O Shri Dila Ram, R/O Village Alu Randal, P.O. Rampur, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 18.4.2001 by the (1) The Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, H.P. Shimla.

(2) Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., who had worked as Motor Mechanic only for 191 days during the year, 2000 and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 12 years vide demand notice dated 25.9.2013, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of 191 days during the year, 2000 and delay of more than 12 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to form the above employer/management?”

3. The claim which was put forth by the petitioner/workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was initially engaged by the respondents/Himachal Road Transport Corporation as a Motor Mechanic (helper) on 06.06.2020, for a period of 89 days. After completion of 89 days, he was reengaged for further 89 days. This process continued upto 17.04.2001. Thereafter, his services were terminated without any notice. The information which was obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, demonstrated that the respondents had appointed many persons as Motor Mechanic on piecemeal basis after his termination. He also came to know that services of such like persons were thereafter placed on contract basis. It was in this background that the petitioner raised industrial dispute by claiming reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. The claim of the workman/petitioner was contested by the respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that the workman was engaged only on day to day basis on the leave vacancy of regular staff during the year 2000, w.e.f. 06.06.2000 in Motor Mechanic Trade on monthly remuneration of Rs.2000. As per respondents No.1 and 2, the workman was not engaged for 89 days and the factum of the workman/petitioner being reengaged after 89 days period again for such period was denied. It was further the contention of respondents No.1 and 2 that the workman/petitioner had left his job without giving any notice to the Department. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in interview for the post of Motor Mechanic, but could not qualify due to less mark. It was denied that either there were vacant posts with the respondent or that the workman/petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.4.2001 by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP…..

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP….

3. Relief.”

6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were answered as under:

“Issue No.1 : No

Issue No.2 : Becomes redundant.

RELIEF : Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the