IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2192 OF 2001 (M/S) State of U.P. & another ………………Petitioner. Versus Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Uttara Pradesh, Dehradun and another. . ……….Respondents. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award-dated 6.4.1995 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) in Adjudication Case No. 86 of 1993. 2. The industrial dispute decided by the impugned award was referred in the following terms: - “Whether the termination of services of its 31 workmen mentioned in the list from the dates mentioned in front of their names by the Employer is illegal and/or unjustified? if so, , to which benefit/compensation the 2 applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners’ establishment is a training institute for the purpose of imparting training to the Engineers (Gazetted) of various categories of various departments like P.W.D., Irrigation Department, R.E.S. etc. According to the petitioner, the total number of Class IV category post is 16, but besides this, workers on daily wage / muster roll basis have been engaged upon the availability of work from time to time. The respondents workmen have been engaged between the period of 1981 to 1986 on muster roll basis as per the requirement of the work in the said Institute and they were being paid their wages on day to day basis. On account of the reduction in the training session, the number of workers was reduced as the available work was being conducted by the sanctioned strength of the Institute very well. However, a policy decision was taken to disengage the muster roll employee with effect from 30.9.1988. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court being Writ Petition No. 20380 of 1988, but the same was dismissed observing that the petitioners/present respondents may approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, a Special Appeal was filed by the present respondents against the said order, which was finally disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on 23.3.1992 directing the appropriate government to make reference in this matter. It was held that if any grievance is raised by the petitioner within two months, it shall be dispose of within a period of three months by the Labour Court, 3 Industrial Tribunal from making thereof. A reference was made to the Conciliation Officer on 5.8.1992. 4. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondents-workmen by holding that discontinuance of their engagement was illegal and all the respondents workmen were entitled to be reinstated. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Sri H.M. Raturi has submitted that the award passed by the learned Labour is arbitrary and the respondents-workmen did not approach the Conciliation Officer within the stipulated time. 6. So far as delay is concerned, Honble Apex Court in the case Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another [1999 (82) FLR 137] held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay is raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour Court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The court may 4 also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages. 7. This analogy has further been observed in the case of Gurmail Singh Vs. Principal, Government College of Education and others [2000(84) FLR 920]. The Apex Court has observed as under:- “…….As laid down by this Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. and another (1996) 6 SCC 82, if the order of dismissal is challenged belatedly, the dispute would still continue for adjudication, the only question would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising such a dispute if on merits it is to succeed.” 8. So far as the arbitrariness of the award is concerned, I have perused the judgment and order passed by the labour Court concerned. Labour Court has held that without following the procedure for retrenchment of workmen under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination becomes null and void and concerned workman becomes entitled for being reinstated. Further the labour court has relied upon the statement of the Employer, who has stated that the workmen concerned are still working in the department through Contractor, which establishes that still there is much more work available in the department/institution and has directed the employer to reinstate them along with 50% back wages. 5 9. So far delay is concerned, the employer has already reduced the backwages to the extent of 50%. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the award dated 6th April, 1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the same is confirmed. 11. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour