IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19656 of 2003 Date of decision:25.09.2009 Lokesh Kumar Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- II. Civil Writ Petition No.19664 of 2003 Jagbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both the writ petitions are at the instance of the workmen who complained of the failure to make reference by the State on the ground that there was a delay. The workmen's complaint was that they had been terminated unlawfully in the year 1995 and when they came to know about fresh engagement of other persons in the year 2000, they issued demand notices. The cause for the delay was on account of the fact that the alleged unfair labour practice came to be known by the Civil Writ Petition No.19656 of 2003 - 2 - concerned workmen only subsequently. The response of the management was that the workmen had actually abandoned the jobs and the management itself had not served with any letters of termination to the workmen. The claims were stale and the Government was justified in rejecting their reference. 2. It has borne in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act does not stipulate any period of limitation and it has been held in many cases that if there is a delay which could not be explained, the Government itself shall not enter into a decision on the merit of the claim. The question whether the termination was justified or not or whether there was any termination at all as complained by the workmen, would be still matters that should be left to the Labour Court for an adjudication than the Government who could decide no more than whether there existed an 'industrial dispute'. The fact stated in the petition definitely showed that there existed a dispute between the workmen and the management and it would only be appropriate if the Government considers the existence of dispute between the parties and make suitable orders for reference. 3. The rejection of the respective references sought at the instance of the workmen, are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Government to consider afresh the question raised by the workmen and pass appropriate orders for reference in the light of what is stated above. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of observations referred to above. (K.KANNAN) 25.09.2009 JUDGE sanjeev