CWP No. 7590 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7590 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.05.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry), Bhiwani now The Divisional Forest Officer, (Territorial), Bhiwani .....PETITIONER VERSUS Sh. Rajender s/o Sh. Munshi Ram and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 12.07.2006 (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 i.e. 19.06.2000. CWP No. 7590 of 2009 2 The impugned award is dated 12.07.2006 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 2 years 10 months as the writ petition was filed on 18.05.2009, the counsel for 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 12.07.2006 and after publication of award, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 04.10.2006. As per request of the workman- petitioner, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 20.11.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 20.11.2006 to send his legal opinion to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana whether case is fit for filing writ petition or not? The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 17.1.2007. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instruction vide letter dated 1.2.2007 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the award. After receipt the instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Siwani was directed vide letter No. 4355 dated 19.02.2007 and 1603 dated 25.06.2008 and 2541 dated 12.08.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 12.07.2006. But, the Range Forest Officer, Siwani failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the erring official. After CWP No. 7590 of 2009 3 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 2 years and 10 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 the year 2006. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 17.1.2007. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions to the Advocate General, Haryana on 01.02.2007 to file writ petition challenging the award. Range Forest Officer, Siwani was directed vide letter No. 4355 dated 19.02.2007 and 1603 dated 25.06.2008 and 2541 dated 12.08.2008 to file writ petition against the award dated 12.07.2006. From 12.08.2008 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 CWP No. 7590 of 2009 4 enough in pursuing the matter. The award in favour of the workman was passed by the Labour Court on 12.07.2006. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 04.10.2006. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 20.11.2006 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. Request on behalf of the petitioners was addressed to the District Attorney, Rohtak vide letter dated 20.11.2006 to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter dated 17.01.2007. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 01.02.2007 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition challenging the award. Thereafter, Range Forest Officer, Siwani was directed vide letter No. 4355 dated 19.02.2007 and 1603 dated 25.06.2008 and 2541 dated 12.08.2008 to file the writ petition in the High Court. From12.08.2008 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 18.05.2009, 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 more than 9 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 State, despite having been called for to produce the records, has failed to produce the same leading to the Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner, therefore, holding that the workman had continuously worked with the petitioner from 11.07.1985 to 28.06.1997. CWP No. 7590 of 2009 5 Further, it has been held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date 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 20.11.2006, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 20, 2009 pj CWP No. 7590 of 2009 6