IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 206 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 09, 2009. Subh Ram ... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon, .... Respondents. and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Through this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure-P-11) passed by the Labour Court-1, Gurgaon, in Reference No. 357 of 1999. The reference has been declined primarily on the ground that the workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and further on the ground that the case of the petitioner is covered under Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and still further on the ground that the reference is delayed and therefore, is not maintainable. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the document on which reliance has been made by the Labour Court is merely a statement of the period for which the petitioner has worked with the respondents and in the statement made before the Labour Court by Mr. Tula Ram, M.W.1, he has admitted that it does not bear any signature or stamp and he does not know who has prepared the same. It has further C.W.P. No. 206 of 2009. been admitted by him that he has brought the attendance record from 01.10.1988 to 30.05.1989. On that basis, he submits that due to non production of records, an adverse inference may be drawn against the management and benefit thereof should have been given to the workman. He further contends that the relief could be moulded by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner in the light of the fact that similarly placed employee stood already regularised on the basis of the instructions issued by Government of Haryana and therefore, directions should have been given by the Labour Court to consider his case as that of the similarly placed employee. With regard to the delay in making the demand, Counsel for the petitioner contends that he was required only to explain initial delay of about six years. He admits that the termination of the petitioner was on 30.05.1989 whereas the first demand notice was served on the respondents on 20.04.1995. He further admits that the Government had vide Annexure- P-3 dated 10.01.1996 declined the reference. The said order was not challenged, however on subsequent application preferred by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Labour Court in the year, 1999. He, therefore, submits that delay at best could be about six years from the date of termination and for that he puts forth an explanation that a similar placed employee whose services were terminated alongwith the petitioner in which the reference was made in the year, 1989, was answered in his favour vide award dated 04.03.1994. He submits that on coming to know of the award passed in favour of his co-worker employee, the petitioner has preferred the demand notice. I have considered the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. It may be correct that an adverse inference may be drawn for -2- C.W.P. No. 206 of 2009. non production of the records and if that being so at the most the petitioner could claim that the provisions of Section 25-F stood not complied with, however, in the light of the fact that there is a delay in putting forth a claim which admittedly was initially rejected by the Government vide order dated 10.01.1996 (Annexure-P-3) and thereafter, the matter was only referred in the year, 1999, and the only explanation further put forth is that a co- worker on having attained an award in his favour gave him an opportunity to submit his demand, cannot be accepted as justifiable and reasonable explanation for the delay of about six years in preferring the demand notice ignoring the subsequent demand notice on which the reference was made in 1999 i.e. about ten years. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited Versus K.P. Madhawan Kutty, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 839, that limitation is applicable in reference and that stale and delayed claims should not be entertained especially where the claimant sleeps over his rights for no justifiable reason as in this case. As regards, submissions of counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court should have moulded the relief and should have directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as in the case of his co-worker who was similarly placed, the said relief cannot also be granted to the petitioner in the light of the fact that the Haryana Government has withdrawn the instructions with regard to regularisation of the services of its employees in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1, which were issued by the State prior to this decision. -3- C.W.P. No. 206 of 2009. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and dismiss the same. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 09,2009. sjks. -4-