CWP No.3116 of 1990 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3116 of 1990 Date of decision: December 16, 2008. State of Punjab & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Tilak Raj & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Though as per the Office report dasti notice issued to respondent No.1 has not been received back served or otherwise, however, Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, states that service report on the dasti notice issued to respondent No.1 has already been received by the High Court. The report perused. It appears that notice has been served upon respondent No.1 on 10.12.2008. The report is taken on record. This civil writ petition is at the instance of the State of Punjab CWP No.3116 of 1990 -: 2 :- and is directed against the order dated 1.8.1989 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar whereby an application moved on behalf of the petitioner-management for adjournment was declined and the case was fixed for the respondent-workman's evidence. The facts unfolded hereinafter reflect the sad and unfortunate state of affairs of the justice delivery system. Respondent No.1 appears to have filed a claim petition under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the recovery of wages of his deceased father (Mana Masih) who worked with the petitioner- Department as PR Chowkidar from the year 1956 till his death on 13.6.1978. Notice of the aforesaid claim petition was issued and the authorities of the petitioner-State, namely, the management was granted time to file its written statement. It appears that the written statement could not be filed despite sufficient opportunities, which prompted the Labour Court to pass the impugned order dated 1.8.1989 whereby, after observing that no written statement has again been filed, the Labour Court dismissed an application moved on behalf of the petitioners for adjournment and fixed the case for the workman's evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition in which while issuing notice of motion, further proceedings before the Labour Court were stayed on 14.3.1990. It would, thus, be seen that a claim petition for the release of the wages allegedly not paid to the deceased father of the respondent- claimant who died in the year 1978, was at the stage of filing of the written statement in the year 1989-90 and for more than 18 years further CWP No.3116 of 1990 -: 3 :- proceedings have remained stayed under the orders of this Court. The record further reveals that the claimant appeared before the Presiding Officer of the Pre-Lok Adalat on 16.7.1993 and himself requested that the writ petition may be allowed and the order Annexure P-3 be quashed with a direction to the Labour Court to decide the claim petition in a time-bound manner. His nightmare, however, did not come to an end despite that concession. Unfortunately, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-claimant. The petitioner authorities were accordingly directed to effect service on him through dasti notice. Though the report is not categoric, however, it appears that the respondent has been served. No one , however, appears on his behalf obviously for the reason that at this juncture he might not be interested even to pursue the claim petition as 20 years have passed and the claim petition is still at the preliminary stage. Be that as it may, the petitioners have come up with a stand that the written statement is ready and a copy thereof has been appended with the writ petition also. In the facts and circumstances, it appears that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners to file their counter affidavit to the claim petition. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 1.8.1989 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and it is directed that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to file their written statement subject, however, to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-. If the respondent- complainant is still interested for decision of his claim petition on merits, the Labour Court is directed to give his case utmost priority and decide the CWP No.3116 of 1990 -: 4 :- same before 30th June, 2009. December 16, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge