Civil Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 Date of decision: March 19, 2008 Sumer … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.N.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of Annexure P-13 dated 18th September, 2007 and Annexure P-14 dated 13th December, 2007, whereby petitioner’s prayer for raising industrial dispute has been rejected by State Government (respondent No.1). Petitioner has contended that he was appointed as Supervisor in Distillery Unit of Cooperative Sugar Mill in November, 1979. It is further submitted that on 29th June, 1996, Panipat Sugar Mills Distillery Unit, Panipat (respondent No.3) retrenched the services of the petitioner without issuing any notice and without paying retrenchment compensation as envisaged under Section 25 of the Act. Claim of the petitioner is that the Vice President of the Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh wrote a letter to the Panipat Sugar Mill (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Mill, respondent No.3’) that the retrenched employees be taken back in service. Thereafter, on 3rd March, 1999 again request for re-instatement of the retrenched employees Civil Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 2 was made through the Union. Thereafter, on 22nd October, 2000, petitioner along with other related employees made a representation to the Mill, respondent No.3. It is contended that several representations made by the petitioner and other retrenched employees on 19th April, 2004 did not elicit any response. Thereafter, petitioner issued a demand notice under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been pleaded that State Government has declined the claim of the petitioner for referring the matter to the labour Court on 29th August, 2005 and subsequently also on 25th May, 2006 vide Annexure P-9 and P-10. Petitioner being aggrieved, challenged Annexure P-9 and P-10 in civil writ petition No. 16137 of 2006 wherein it was urged that the State Government committed a grave error by declining to refer the dispute on the ground of delay and laches. The above said writ petition was decided on October 12, 2006 vide Annexure P-11. This Court had held as under: “We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, no doubt the petitioner-workman and others moved an application to the Chief Minister, Haryana, redressing their grievance, to which the Labour Commissioner, Haryana vide letter Annexure P-5 dated 2.7.1999 informed that only one Typist and 33 labour employees are working and the remaining retrenched employees will also be called by the management, as per requirement in due course of time, but it has not been cogently established that the petitioner- workman had pursued the matter and further after July 1999. The petitioner-workman, though has placed on record two letters Annexure P-6 addressed to Deputy Labour Commissioner, Panipat dated 16.1.2002 and other one addressed to the Managing Director, Coop. Sugar Mill and Distillery, Panipat dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure P-7) but there is no such reference of the said letter in the demand notice (Annexure P-8). It is for this reason the appropriate Government vide order dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure P-9) opined that he had not given any satisfactory reason for Civil Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 3 delay. In Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and others 2001 (6) SCC 222, it has been held that there are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval, it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the union on account of other justified reasons, it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In the instant case, if appears that the petitioners had not appropriately pleased his case before the Government, whereas it was incumbent upon him to prima facie show the appropriate Government that the dispute is very much in existence and is not stale as they had been pursuing it in between. For this reason, certainly, the appropriate Government, finding no other option, had turned down the request of the petitioner of referring the dispute to the Labour Court, considering the passage of more than 8 years from the date of retrenchment and serving of demand notice. In the light of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, before parting, it is made clear that the petitioner is not precluded from raising demand notice afresh, provide he satisfied the appropriate Government that he had been pursuing the dispute in all these years. Sd/- (ARVIND KUMAR) Judge Sd/- (J.S.NARANG) October 12, 2006 Judge By filing present writ petition, it is submitted before us that taking into consideration parting observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Annexure P-11, petitioner had again submitted a demand notice vide Annexure P-12 and the same was rejected on 18th September, 2007 Civil Writ Petition No.4335 of 2008 4 vide Annexure P-13 and subsequently, representation of the petitioner was also rejected vide Annexure P-14 on 13th December, 2007. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. We fail to appreciate his submission. Once this Court has returned the finding that the claim of the petitioner had become stale and the appropriate Government had no other option but to turn down the request of the petitioner for referring the dispute to the labour Court considering the passage of eight years from the date of retrenchment and serving of demand notice, as to how we can vary the finding of this Court in earlier writ and condone the delay. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the State Government. But from that liberty, it cannot be construed that the delay and act of omission on the part of the petitioner to approach the competent authority at earliest, stood condoned by this Court. Matter was set at rest, so far judicial intervention was called for. Had this Court found merit in the claim of the petitioner, it would have issued mandamus then and there. However, petitioner was granted liberty so that he is able to redress his grievance at the ends of State. Hence, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge March 19, 2008. rps