C.W.P No.17025 of 1999 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.17025 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 Sukhdev Singh .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The award in challenge is rejection of reference sought at the instance of the workman that he had been wrongfully terminated. The contention of the workman was that he joined the service on 15.10.1984 on a daily wage basis and he was terminated from service without following the statutory mandate under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act on 30.05.1987. Even the management witness-MW1 had conceded that the workman had completed 240 days of service but the objection was that he was being employed as a Chowkidar only when there was work available and he was required to be jettisoned when he became surplus and his services were no longer required. The Labour Court found that there had been an inordinate delay of more than 6 years and 9 months from the date of C.W.P No.17025 of 1999 (O&M) -2- termination of service to the date when he issued a demand notice on 08.08.1994. Finding that the reference was grossly belated, the Labour Court rejected the reference. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that valid explanation had been given before the Labour Court as to how he had been periodically sending notices to the management and he was misled to the belief that his notices would obtain a favourable response. The delay was only on account of persistent correspondence which the workman had been sending to the workman and the mere delay ought not to have been taken out against the workman, which denied to him the statutory benefits. Learned counsel also argued that the Industrial Disputes Act itself did not provide for any law of limitation and therefore, the Court shall be liberal in construing the matters relating to the period of limitation. 3. It is a case where the workman had been terminated as early as in the year 1987. If it is seen as admitted that the workman had completed 240 days, so long as it is not in the nature of punishment, the management is required to follow the procedure under Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is a clear case of violation and the mere delay in prosecuting the remedy, in my view, ought not to be held out against the workman. However, having regard to the fact that the workman had been only engaged as daily rated worker in a statutory corporation and that too, even when at the time he was terminated from service, it was on the ground that the work force was in surplus of the requirement, there shall be no requirement for directing reinstatement. In my view, appropriate relief that the C.W.P No.17025 of 1999 (O&M) -3- workman could have, under the circumstances, shall only be to provide for compensation, which is estimated to be Rs.35,000/- and the same shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the workman shall be entitled to interest also @ 7.5% per annum. 4. The award of the Labour court is set aside and the writ petition is ordered in the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 25, 2009 Pankaj*