CWP No.16169 of 2008 CWP No.19839 of 2008 CWP No.21611 of 2008 CWP No.21612 of 2008 CWP No.21613 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 1 CWP No.21615 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.16169 of 2008 Date of decision July 21, 2009 Ramesh Chand ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CWP No.19839 of 2008 Smt. Shakuntla Devi ....... Petitioner Versus Union of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and others ........ Respondents CWP No.21611 of 2008 Gopal ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CWP No.21612 of 2008 Balbir Kaur ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CWP No.21613 of 2008 Dharam Kaur ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CWP No.16169 of 2008 CWP No.19839 of 2008 CWP No.21611 of 2008 CWP No.21612 of 2008 CWP No.21613 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 2 CWP No.21615 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 Urmila Devi ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CWP No.21615 of 2008 Sulinder Kaur ....... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. S. S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. K. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi,Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes K. Kannan, J(oral). 1. All these writ petitions relate to claims made by workmen under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for the period when they were not being permitted to join duty in spite of the award of the Labour Court and subsequent notification of the award finding the termination of the workmen to be illegal and CWP No.16169 of 2008 CWP No.19839 of 2008 CWP No.21611 of 2008 CWP No.21612 of 2008 CWP No.21613 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 3 CWP No.21615 of 2008 directing reinstatement. The contentions of the workmen were that in spite of the publication of the award directing reinstatement, the Management did not allow implementation of the award by offering employment. The workmen had placed on record their joining reports soon after the publication of the award offering themselves willing to join by letters dated 13.12.1993. Their complaint was that the Management was deliberately not employing them and therefore they had to file the writ petitions seeking for issuance of mandamus against the Management for implementing the award and for further direction against the Assistant Labour Commissioner to prosecute the Management for non implementation of the award. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petitions on 16.5.1997 directing the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take effective steps for the implementation of the award. According to the workmen all the petitioners were allowed to join duty only subsequent to the directions of the High Court. The petitions were, therefore, it reasoned that filed claiming wages from the period w.e.f. 1.10.1993 to 31.7.1997. 2. The Labour Court found the non-engagement to be unjustified but allowed for wages only from April, 1996 to 31.1.1997 taking note of the fact that the applications under Section 33-C (2) had been instituted on 1.4.1999 and therefore, it reasoned that the claim should be only for the period commencing three years prior to the date of filing of the petitions. Consequently, the workmen were found entitled to make the claims only from 1.4.1996 to 31.7.1997. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen submits that there is no period of limitation for prosecuting the claim under Section 33-C(2) and if at all there is restriction in law, the restriction is only CWP No.16169 of 2008 CWP No.19839 of 2008 CWP No.21611 of 2008 CWP No.21612 of 2008 CWP No.21613 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 4 CWP No.21615 of 2008 that delayed matters cannot be entertained under Section 33-C (2). If there was a delay, the delay must be adequately explained. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Central Bank of India Litd. Vs. P.S. Rajagopalan etc. reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 held that the scope of Section 33-C (2) was wide and held while Industrial adjudication could not encourage unduly belated claims, however, no limitation is prescribed for an application under Section 33-C (2) and it would not be right to refuse an opportunity to the workmen to prove their entitlement only on the ground they moved the Labour Court after a considerable delay. In this case, it should be noticed that all the workmen after they obtained favourable awards for reinstatement and wages had sought interference by this Hon'ble Court through a writ petition for implementation of the awards and they were reinstated only after directions given by the Labour Court. It could be seen that the workmen had been prosecuting the claims and complaining against the Management for non- implementation of the award and after they were actually reinstated, the petitions came to be filed within a period of two years. This period could hardly be said to be belated. 4. In the light of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, it was contended by the Management that the Management let in evidence before the Labour Court , of one Jangi Prashad that he had been working since 1985 and he knew that the workmen did not submit their joining reports or did not come to join duty for the period when they were making the claims. It was the attempt on the part of the Management to show that they had not prevented the workmen from re-joining duty. This contention cannot be accepted especially if we CWP No.16169 of 2008 CWP No.19839 of 2008 CWP No.21611 of 2008 CWP No.21612 of 2008 CWP No.21613 of 2008 CWP No.21614 of 2008 5 CWP No.21615 of 2008 have due regard to the fact that the workmen could obtain due implementation of the award only after this Hon'ble Court intervened by issuing Rule nisi in the writ petition filed directing the implementation of the award. It would be inconceivable that any workmen would inflict on himself a needless round of litigation seeking for reinstatement through implementation of the award, or deliberately stay away from employment and wait for things to happen by orders of High Court. The contentions of the Management that they were at all times willing to allow the workmen to rejoin duty but they had not deliberately done so cannot be accepted. 5. If the Management did not have valid justification for not allowing the workmen to join duty in spite of directions given by the Labour Court for reinstatement, it should only mean that they shall also become liable for wages for the entire period from 19.11.1993 till date when they were permitted to join and not limited only for a period of three years from the date when the petition was filed. The order of the Labour Court insofar as it restricts the claim only from April, 1996 is modified and the claim shall be allowed for the entire period from 19.11.1993 till the date when they re-joined. 6. The writ petitions are allowed as above. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2009 archana