IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP No. 434/2008 Decided on: 18.6. 2010. Arbind Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus The Managing Director, M/s Deepak Spinners Limited and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent :Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Per Justice Rajiv Sharma Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’ for convenience sake) was engaged on the post of Drawing Machine Man on 18.12.1993. He was put under suspension on 14.4.2000. Inquiry was concluded and he was served with a letter dated 20.3.2001 alongwith copy of the inquiry report. He was terminated on 14.4.2001 on the basis of the inquiry report. He served demand notice upon the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the management’ for convenience sake) seeking Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 reinstatement of his services with full back wages and continuity in service. State Government after the receipt of the failure report, referred the matter to the Labour Court on 8.8.2003. The workman appointed Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad to pursue his case before the Labour Court. Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad made a statement before the Labour Court on 28.10.2005 and on the basis of his statement, reference petition was dismissed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court on 28.10.2005. The workman preferred an application for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2005. The same was dismissed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court on 3.10.2007. Petitioner has assailed the orders dated 28.10.2005 and 3.10.2007 by way of present petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 3. State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Arbind Singh S/O Shri Rajbali Singh by the Management of M/S Deepak Spinners, Ltd., 121 Industrial Area, Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 14.4.2001 on basis of domestic enquiry is proper and justified? If not, what relief and service benefit to Shri Arbind Singh is entitled to? 4. The reference was made on 8.8.2003. The workman belongs to lower strata of society. He had entrusted his case to Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad to file the claim petition. Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad made statement before the Presiding Judge, 3 Labour Court on 28.10.2005 that he was not able to contact the petitioner and consequently he did not want to file any claim petition. He prayed that the reference petition be dismissed. In sequel to the statement of Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad, Presiding Judge dismissed the reference petition on 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-2). He preferred application for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2005. Presiding Judge dismissed the application for recalling order dated 28.10.2005 only on the ground that the workman had been granted numerous opportunities to file the claim petition. 5. We are of the considered view that the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the reference only on the ground that the workman has failed to file the claim petition. The Labour Court was required to go into the merits of the reference and adjudicate upon the dispute on the basis of reference made to it. The Labour Court is required to answer the reference either in affirmative or in negative. The Labour Court could not be oblivious to the fact that the workman had already entrusted the case to his representative, namely, Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad, but for the reasons best known to him, he did not file any claim petition. Sh. Ram Ashray Parsad could not make statement that the reference petition be dismissed; rather his prayer should have been to adjudicate the reference on merits. Presiding Judge should have taken a reasonable view by recalling the order dated 28.10.2005 and by permitting the workman to file claim petition. 4 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Orders dated 28.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) and 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-5) are set aside. Reference No. 234/2003 is restored to the original file and the Presiding Judge, Labour Court is directed to proceed in the matter further from the stage on which the reference was pending before 28.10.2005. Learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court is directed to decide the reference in question as early as possible preferably within a period of six months after the receipt of the records. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 18.6.2010. *awasthi*