216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 03.09.2025 Rajpal Singh …Petitioner Versus Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. R.S. Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG Punjab ****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner-workman filed a claim petition which subsequently through a Reference No. 75/99 was referred to learned Labour Court concerned.

The petitioner- workman through the claim made the following prayer: “Withdraw the orders (i) Endst. No.4410-13/ECC dated 04.07.1983, (ii) Endst. No. 17570/ECC dated 27.02.1984 bearing Endst. 17571- 77/ECC dated 27.02.1984 (iii) Endst. No. 16832-35/ECC dated 02.02.1984 (iv) Order No. 142-45/TA dated 09.01.1989 illegally suspending me from service and order bearing Endst. No.7468- 69/ST/GM dated 09.10.1989 stopping the arrears of suspension period and grant two annual graded increments with cumulative effect and forfeiting of seniority, promotion, annual graded increments and other incidental benefits considering the date of appointment workman as 17.06.1987 with continuity of service arrear of back wages.”

2. The reference was answered against the workman on the ground that the claim petition suffered with delay and latches, and also hit by principle of doctrine of res judicata.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the issue raised by the petitioner is infact a concurrent loss to him, and therefore, there is no delay in raising the dispute. Before this Court examine the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is imperative to have a look upon the relevant facts, which are essential for the adjudication of the instant matter. The All India Trade Union Congress, Pathankot, through its General Secretary, served a demand notice dated 15.04.1996 upon the respondent raising the dispute about the illegality and justification of the order, and demanded release of increment, which respondent did not concede and which led to the issuance of reference to the Tribunal for adjudication by the competent authority invoking Section 10(i)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim of the petitioner was primarily opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order of punishment dated 09.01.1989, and 09.10.1989, by filing a civil suit before the Civil Court concerned, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.1991. The second objection which was raised is qua the delay and latches as the claim petition was filed after seven years of the cause of occurrence.

The reference was answered against the workman as already observed above.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner made serious attempt to challenge the impugned award, however, he is unable to satisfy this Court as to how workman is not estopped on account of principle of res judicata, once the legality of order of punishment has already been challenged by way of civil suit and the judgment and decree has attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court in this regard. Further, there is a huge delay and there is no explanation what to talk about plausible explanation given in the claim petition for such delay, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly declined to entertain the claim petition on the ground of delay and latches.

5. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned award and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(KULDEEP TIWARI)

JUDGE September 03, 2025 reena