Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 Date of Decision: 28.4.2008 The Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar …Petitioner Versus The President, District Agriculture Workers Union, Hisar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar, challenging the award dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P4) whereby workmen represented by the President, District Agriculture Workers Union, Hisar, Street No. 5, House No. 123, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar, have been ordered to be reinstated in service for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) without any entitlement to the back wages. Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 2 Briefly stated that services of the workmen as per the service chart attached as Annexure P1 pertaining to case ID No. 67 of 1992 were terminated w.e.f. 1.2.1983. The Central Government on 29.6.1992 referred the following dispute to Labour Court:- “Whether the action of the management of Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar in terminating the services of S/Shri Subhash, Suresh, Phoola, Ishwar Singh, Madan Gopal, Satgwan, Ramjee Lal, Jaspal Singh, Gad Singh, Inderaj Singh, Bhahal Singh, Satish Kumar and Sh.Bahadur w.e.f. 31.1.1990 is justified? If no, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?” It was stated by the Union of the workers in Claim Statement (Annexure P2 that 137 workmen were appointed by verbal order on different times. They had rendered service for more than 240 days in each preceding 12 months and their services were terminated on 1.2.1983 in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In para 4, it was specifically stated that from the beginning w.e.f. 1.2.1983 the Union has been raising this dispute persistently before the respondents and there was no fault on the part of workers in causing delay. It was further stated that the Union had served demand notice on 13.12.1988 under Section 2K of the Act. It was further stated that the workmen are entitled to be regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1988 as had their services been not terminated they would have been regularised with other workers who continued in service and were regularised w.e.f. 1.4.1988 as per orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, termination by the Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 3 Management w.e.f. 1.2.1983 is illegal and against the rules of law. The management took a preliminary objection that the Claim Statement dated 29.6.1998 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the termination took place in the year 1983 and the Claim Statement had been filed in 1998. It has been so stated in the preliminary objection in the written statement to the Claim Statement (Annexure P3). The industrial dispute was referred on 29.6.1992. No issue had been framed regarding the delay and industrial dispute had become stale. It was not urged before the Labour Court that after the termination in 1983, the demand notice dated 13.12.1988 and the reference in 1992 and Claim Statement (Annexure P2) filed on 29.6.1998 cannot be taken into consideration because the claim had become stale and, therefore, within the meaning of Section 10, no dispute existed or could be apprehended. But before us it was argued by the learned counsel for the Union of India that in view of the law laid down in Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P.Madhavankutty (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 455 and Haryana State Co-operative Land Development v. Neelam (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 91, the procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of acceptance sub silentio. We find merit in this contention and hold that in the present case claim of the workmen had become stale as admittedly as per Claim Statement (Annexure P2) their services were terminated on 1.2.1983. They had served demand notice on 13.12.1988 and filed their Claim Statement (Annexure P2) on Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 4 29.6.1998. Furthermore, even if we do not take that claim has become stale, the workmen were employed as daily wagers. Their services were not recruited through Employment Exchange or by issuing an advertisement in a newspaper. It has been urged in para 9 of the writ petition that the workmen could not be reinstated in view of the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi & others (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. We find that the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 533, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 408, Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 supreme Court Cases 221 and U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and Others (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 755, it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations. Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 2007 5 In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned award dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P4). (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 28, 2008 “DK”