C.W.P. No. 2054 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2054 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.2.2008. ... Ram Pal ................ petitioner vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. The petitioner-workman has impugned the award dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat-respondent No.1. The petitioner was appointed as daily paid work charge in January 1993 and according to the workman he worked with management till 31.12.1995. The petitioner served a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure P- 1). The workman has pleaded that he has completed 240 days in the last calendar year and on that account his termination is illegal. The management has taken the stand that the petitioner has never completed 240 days in a calendar year. The learned Labour Court after appraisal of the evidence returned the finding that the workman has not completed 240 days and on that account his C.W.P. No. 2054 of 2008 -2- termination was not bad. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any case for interference in the fact finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not completed 240 days. The Labour Court in paragraph 10 of the award has held that self-serving testimony of the workman that he had worked from 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1995, cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence on the file. Moreover, no explanation has been given by the workman as to why the reference was not made for about 7 years. No doubt there is no limitation for filing a reference but in the authority reported as Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank vs. Neelam 2005 AIR SC 1843, it has been held that although there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the Government or the Court. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and doctrine of Acceptance Sub Silentio are applicable even to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So, in these circumstances, the writ petition is without any merit. Hence, the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) Judge ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) 12.2.2008. Judge chug