CWP No.5427 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5427 of 2005 Decided on : 01 -07-2010 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribulnal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gurbinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision dated 27.10.2006 of Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 18934 of 2005. He states that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned award and the judgment referred to and the award in context of which the aforesaid judgment has been referred. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of award dated 23.9.2004 a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-9 which had been passed by respondent no.1. The effect of the award is that industrial reference raised by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay. This Court while dealing with almost identical award rendered a decision in CWP No.18934 of 2005 and had accepted the plea of the workman while remanding the matter back to the Labour Court for CWP No.5427 of 2005 2 deciding the same on merits. No one is present on behalf of the respondents to controvert the prayer made before this Court. On perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of decision rendered in CWP No.18934 of 2005 wherein Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:- “The sole question that requires consideration is whether the impugned award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference on account of delay can be said to be justified? No doubt it is appropriate that the disputes effecting the rights of the workmen should be raised as soon as possible after they have arisen so that upon reference it can be timely adjudicated. But it is equally true that delay in raising the dispute would be a circumstance, which is liable to be taken into consideration. In cases no reasons are given in support of the delay, it would have a bearing on the rights of the workmen concerned and he is liable to be non-suited on the ground of delay. However, where reasons are given and there is explanation for the delay in raising the dispute, the same would be a factor for consideration by the appropriate Government or the Court, as the same may be. In Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others 2001 (6) SCC 222, it has been held that there are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible CWP No.5427 of 2005 3 to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanised by the workmen or the union on account of other justified reasons, it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In the instant case, the petitioner had challenged his termination before CAT, who dismissed his application on 20.9.1993 simply on the ground that he had not exhausted the remedy provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. It necessitated the petitioner to challenge the order of the CAT before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where he met with the same fate and his SLP was dismissed on 10.1.1997. This led him to raise industrial dispute in the same year on 23.12.1997. Therefore, it is not the case that he kept silent and slept over the matter till he raised the demand notice on 23.12.1997. Rather his grievance remained pending adjudication either before the CAT or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In other words, the dispute was very much alive when he raised the demand on 23.12.1997. In these backdrop of the fact, the Labour Court should not have rejected the reference merely on the ground of delay and latches. Of course, the long delay in making the reference could be considered by the Labour Court while moulding its relief, in the given circumstances, discussed above. The Labour Court has certainly gone wrong in axing down the dispute raised by the petitioner only on account of delay. In view of the discussion made above, the present CWP No.5427 of 2005 4 petition succeeds and the same is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned award dated 23.9.2004 passed by the Labour Court. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for decisions on merits and that the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 30.11.2006. In the facts and circumstances of this case where the workman is pursuing his grievance, though wrongly, since 1987, it shall be appreciated if the Labour Court decides the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. Petition stands allowed accordingly.” For the aforesaid reasons which have been expressly contained in the aforesaid decision with which I am in absolute concurrence, I accept the writ petition and remit the matter back in the same terms as has been done in CWP No. 18934 of 2005. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 10.8.2010. Petition stands disposed of. July 01, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge