IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6420 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.04.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Bhiwani now The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani .....PETITIONER VERSUS Sh. Satbir s/o Sh. Roop Chand, resident of Village Serla, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani 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 07.08.2003 (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 demand notice dated 04.08.1998. The impugned award is dated 07.08.2003 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 5 years 8 months as the writ petition was filed on 28.04.2009, the counsel for CWP No. 6420 of 2009 -2- the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “8. That the workman-respondent No. 1 has worked in Social Forestry Project which has been winded up on 30.06.2004. The official record of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The said award had been passed before the close of the Social Forestry Project and the closed files were given in the charge of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. When the workman-respondent No. 1 demanded back wages, the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about the award. Hence, the present writ petition is being filed after 5 years and 8 months and delay may please be condoned as per grounds stated above.” A perusal of the above would show that the workman- respondent No. 1 has worked in Social Forestry Project which has been winded up on 30.06.2004. The official record of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The impugned award dated 07.08.2003 had been passed before the close of Social Forestry Project and the official record of the Social Forestry Project was given in the charge of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about the award dated 07.08.2003 after the demand of back wages raised by the workman-respondent No. 1. CWP No. 6420 of 2009 -3- From the date of award i.e. 07.08.2003 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. 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 07.08.2003. The workman-respondent No. 1 has worked in Social Forestry Project which has been winded up on 30.06.2004. The official record of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The impugned award dated 07.08.2003 had been passed before the close of Social Forestry Project and the official record of the Social Forestry Project was given in the charge of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about the award dated 07.08.2003 after the demand of back wages raised by the workman- respondent No. 1. No date has been disclosed on which the petitioner came to know about the passing of the award in favour of the workman. The award is dated 07.08.2003 and the project of Social Forestry was wound up on 30.06.2004. It is also an admitted position that the records were given to the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The CWP No. 6420 of 2009 -4- award came to be published before the winding up of the project of Social Forestry. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the award passed in favour of the workman. Even if the submissions, as made by the petitioner with regard to he being not aware of the award passed in favour of the workman, are taken to be correct but still no date whatsoever has been mentioned as to when the petitioner became aware of the passing of the award dated 07.08.2003. No explanation whatsoever has come forth explaining the delay of non-approaching this Court from the date the records were transferred to the Divisional Forest Officer or from the date of knowledge of the award being in favour of the workman. No explanation 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 5 years and 8 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 12.05.1989 to 16.09.1997. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with as well as the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated as the principle of 'last come first go' has not been adopted by the petitioner-Management, therefore, 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, the Court is not inclined to interfere in CWP No. 6420 of 2009 -5- the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 29, 2009 pj