CWP No.3827 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3827 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 04-03-2011 Angrej Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.R.S.Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J Concededly the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1987 whereas he raised an industrial dispute in the year 1998. The demand having been raised belatedly, the reference deserves to be dismissed on this count. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the demand has been raised almost after 11 years of the termination of the services. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank vs. Neelam 2005 AIR (SC) 1843 held as under:- “13. It is trite that the courts and tribunals having plenary jurisdiction have discretionary power to grant an appropriate relief to the parties. The aim and object of the Industrial Disputes Act may be to impart social justice to the workman but the same by itself would not mean that irrespective of his conduct a workman would automatically be entitled to relief. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to the industrial CWP No.3827 of 2011 (O&M) 2 proceedings. A person in certain situation may even be held to be bound by the doctrine of Acceptance Sub silentio. The Respondent herein did not raise any industrial dispute questioning the termination of her services within a reasonable time. She even accepted an alternative employment and has been continuing therein from 10.8.1988. In her replication filed before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while traversing the plea raised by the Appellant herein that she is gainfully employed in HUDA with effect from 10.8.1988 and her services had been regularized therein, it was averred : "6. The applicant workman had already given replication to the A.L.C. cum Conciliation Officer, stating therein that she was engaged by HUDA from 10.8.1988 as Clerk-cum-Typist on daily wage basis. The applicant workman has the right to come to the service of the management and she is interested to join them." She, therefore, did not deny or dispute that she had been regularly employed or her services had been regularized. She merely exercised her right to join the service of the Appellant. 14.It is true that the Respondent had filed a writ petition within a period of three years but indisputably the same was filed only after the other workmen obtained same relief from the Labour Court in a reference made in that behalf by the State. Evidently in the writ petition she was not in a position to establish her legal right so as to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Appellant herein to CWP No.3827 of 2011 (O&M) 3 reinstate her in service. She was advised to withdraw the writ petition presumably because she would not have obtained any relief in the said proceeding. Even the High Court could have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay or could have otherwise refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The conduct of the Appellant in approaching the Labour Court after more than seven years had, therefore, been considered to be a relevant factor by the Labour Court for refusing to grant any relief to her. Such a consideration on the part of the Labour Court cannot be said to be an irrelevant one. The Labour Court in the aforementioned situation cannot be said to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction injudiciously, arbitrarily and capriciously warranting interference at the hands of the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.” In Nedugadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P.Madhavankutty and others 2000(2) SCC 455 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate govern-ment to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute CWP No.3827 of 2011 (O&M) 4 existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time When the reference in question was made.....” Hence, there is no ground to interfere. Dismissed. March 4, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge