C.W.P. No. 1323 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1323 of 2008 Date of decision : 29.1.2008. ... Satbir ................ petitioner vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kaithal and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. J.P. Dull, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 5.5.2005 passed by Sh. R.K. Kashyap, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, vide which reference made by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), was answered against him. As per the case of the petitioner, he was working on daily wages in the Forest Department, Kurukshetra since November 1986 and worked there regularly upto November 1993. The management terminated his services in the month of November, 1993 illegally without complying with the provisions of Section 25 (F) to (H) of the Act. The management filed reply, in which it has been stated that C.W.P. No. 1323 of 2008 -2- the petitioner worked upto October 1994 but in the previous year he has not completed 240 days. No workman junior to the petitioner was retained in service. None was appointed afresh. Learned Labour Court after hearing both the sides and after going through the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the last calendar year and as such the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not attracted. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was a work charge employee, he has got no right to continue in service after October 1994. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated in the month of November 1993. Reference was made on 21.2.2000. No reasonable explanation for not making the reference for such a long period has been given. Even from Annexure P-3 appended with the file, it is revealed that except in the year 1988, the petitioner has never worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. So, the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, are not attracted. 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. In the authority Divisional Forest Officer (Social), Hisar vs. Krishan Kumar and another in CWP No. 267 of 2007 decided C.W.P. No. 1323 of 2008 -3- on 31.8.2007, it has been held that casual labourers or daily wagers, who are not recruited as per rules and regulations, even if they have completed 240 days, Section 25-F is not attracted. So far as the alleged violation of Section 25-G and H of the Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material on record showing violation of those provisions of law. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) Judge ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) 29.1.2008. Judge chug