Court dismisses petition for reinstatement due to prolonged delay and lack of a live industrial dispute, stressing timely action is crucial in challenging termination.

ORDER

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2018 in Reference (LCP) No.105/2011 dismissing the reference filed by the petitioner for reinstatement in service with back­wages against the respondent­trust.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service as labourer in respondent­trust on 1st March, 1978.

The petitioner was working as daily wager in the respondent­trust. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had completed continuous service of 21 years with the respondent­trust sincerely and honestly and no complaint of any nature was ever made against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that though the post of labourer is still available with the respondent­trust, without any reason, services of the petitioner were orally terminated on 1st October, 1998. The petitioner therefore, preferred reference being Reference (LCP) No.105/2011 under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act” for short). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner continued to work till 1st October, 1998 for more than 21 years and thus he completed the service of 240 days in a year and therefore there is violation of provisions of section 25B of the Act as well as provisions of sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act while terminating the services of the petitioner.

3. The respondent­trust filed its written statement to the statement of claim filed by the petitioner denying all the contentions with a prayer to reject the reference on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioner approached the Court after more than 13 years.

4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur by judgment and award dated 30th March, 2018 rejected the reference filed by the petitioner as the petitioner filed the reference after a gap of 13 years without giving any reason for delay caused in approaching the Court.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Keyur Vyas for the petitioner. He submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as per the requirement of section 25F of the Act. Moreover, the job of the petitioner was perennial in nature and identical nature of work was assigned to other daily wagers but the petitioner was not given the work and therefore, there is a breach of section 25G of the Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner has worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding year of date of termination dated 1st October, 1998 and therefore, there is also breach of section 25B of the Act. It was also contended that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct since no charge­sheet was ever issued before termination. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that there is violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not offered any opportunity of hearing before termination of his service by the respondent­trust and therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Krishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board , Rohtak, Haryana reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 637 to contend that even an employee appointed as a daily wager in a Government department of State of Haryana who had worked for 267 days prior to his termination in v