IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6552 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.04.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Sh. Hari Chand c/o Sh. Chetan Anand, District President, BMS, Bhiwani and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No. 1 holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice dated 13.11.2000. The impugned award is dated 09.08.2005 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 3 years 8 months as the writ petition was filed on 29.04.2009, the counsel for CWP No. 6552 of 2009 -2- the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “8. That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 09.08.2005 and after publication of award, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 31.10.2005. As per request of the workman- respondent, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 08.12.2005 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 01.02.2008. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 13.02.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the award. After receipt the instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 6882 dated 25.02.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 09.08.2005. But, the Range Forest Officer, Loharu failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the erring official. After completing the formalities and completion of papers by the petitioner office, draft writ petition was prepared and submitted to the Advocate General, Haryana office for vetting. After vetting the draft writ petition, the writ petition is being filed after a period of 3 years and 7 months delay. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay may please be condoned on the grounds stated above.” A perusal of the above would show that the workman was reinstated in service subject however to the decision of the writ petition in CWP No. 6552 of 2009 -3- the year 2005. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 01.02.2008. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 13.02.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the award. After receipt the instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 6882 dated 25.02.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 09.08.2005. From 25.02.2008 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition has been expressed and disciplinary action has been initiated against the erring official. He submits that the explanation, as given for the delay, may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. He further submits that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The explanation, as given by the petitioner, which has been reproduced above, does not show that the petitioner had been vigilant enough in pursuing the matter. The award in favour of the workman was passed by the Labour Court on 09.08.2005. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 08.12.2005 subject to decision of the writ petition. Thereafter, the explanation, which has come on record, speaks for itself with regard to the action taken for challenging the impugned award. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter dated 01.02.2008. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 13.02.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the CWP No. 6552 of 2009 -4- award. After receipt the instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Loharu was directed vide letter No. 6882 dated 25.02.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 09.08.2005. From 25.02.2008 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 29.04.2009, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay, which would reflect upon the bona-fides and the care and caution put in by the department in pursuing its remedy before this Court. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of 1 year and 2 months. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition. Further, the findings have been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman had continuously worked with the petitioner from 15.02.1987 to 2.2.2000. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the workman has been taken back in service and is continuing with the petitioner in accordance with the letter dated 08.12.2005, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 30, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters....................Yes/No