Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 243
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Khub Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
HPSEBL & others - Respondents
CWP No. 3242 of 2019
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil K. God, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G.
Point of Law: Government while taking a decision on question of making reference, need not provide an elaborate opportunity of hearing to workman but it is under an obligation to consider his explanation for delay in making demand.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Sections 10, (1), 2-A, 11-A - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137 - Declined to refer dispute - Claim was stale - Unexplained and inordinate delay - Petitioner has assailed office order Annexure P-6, whereby appropriate authority has declined to refer dispute on ground that claim of petitioner was stale – Appropriate authority under Act is not bound to refer every dispute for adjudication to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal notwithstanding existence of delay and laches - Para 9.
Finding of the Court:
Appropriate authority under Act is not bound to refer every dispute for adjudication to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal notwithstanding existence of delay and laches - Plea regarding violation of rights of petitioner under Act and more particularly of principle of ‘last come first go’ had been considered by a Division Bench of Court while deciding CWP - Such plea had been impliedly rejected by court by showing its inability to go into said aspect at such a belated stage - In this view of matter, petitioner could not have raised same plea again by raising an industrial dispute - Even demand notice served upon respondent No.1 by petitioner reveals reiteration of same plea - Once such plea was rejected by a Division Bench of Court, appropriate authority was fully justified in refusing to refer dispute after considering aspect of unexplained and inordinate delay on part of petitioner – Court find no merit in petition.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed office order Annexure P-6, whereby the appropriate authority has declined to refer the dispute under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was stale.
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was engaged by respondent No.1 as daily waged worker in the year 1992 and his services were terminated in 1993. The petitioner for the first time had challenged his termination by approaching this Court in the year 2012 by filing CWP No. 7323 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner on 31.8.2012, in following terms:-
“The petitioners seek re-engagement on the ground that principle of ‘last come first go’ has not been followed. At this distance of time, it is not proper and possible to go into those aspects. However, in case the petitioners have actually worked under the 2nd respondent, in case the 2nd respondent requires additional man-power on account of availability of 3 work, the petitioners will be engaged in preference to new recruits, as fresh hand. 2. With these observations, writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.”
3. Having failed to secure employment from respondent No.1, petitioner again approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8301 of 2014 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition filed by petitioner along with other connected matters vide order dated 11.4.2016, in following terms:-
“After hearing for a while, learned Counsel for the petitioner's stated at the Bar that they may be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Raghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5515 AIR SCW 5515 and also to seek relief(s) sought in these writ petitions, at appropriate stage. Their statements are taken on record. 2. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty, as prayed for, alongwith all pending applications. The interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated”.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Act, which finally culminated in impugned order Annexure P-6.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had filed CWP No. 8301 of 2014, when he had acquired knowledge that his juniors were continued in employment by respondent No.1 and the action of respondents in terminating the service of petitioner in 1993 was in violation of the principle of ‘last come first go’.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 3 and have also gone through the record carefully.
7. The impugned office order Annexure P-6 reveals that the appropriate authority had duly considered the factum of delay on part of the petitioner as reason to deny the reference of alleged dispute for adjudication to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. It was clearly noticed in the impugned order that the petitioner had worked with respondent No.1 w.e.f. 22.1.1992 to 25.3.1992. He remained silent for twenty years and thereafter had approached this Court for the first time in the year 2012.
8. While expounding the scope of powers of appropriate authority under section 10 of the Act, a Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2190 of 2020 titled as Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & another along with connected matters decided on 30.3.2022, has held as under:-
“28. Following principles of law can, therefore be culled out from series of the precedents discussed above, as to the effect of delay in demanding /making reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Act:-
(i) That the function of the appropriate Government while dealing with question of making reference of industrial dispute under
