IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6245 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.04.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani .....PETITIONER VERSUS Sombir son of Shri Ram Saroop, Village Dhani Phogat, Post Office Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No. 1 holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice dated 29.09.1998. The impugned award is dated 09.08.2005 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 3 years 8 months as the writ petition was filed on 24.04.2009, the counsel for CWP No. 6245 of 2009 -2- the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “ That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 09.08.2005 and after the publication of award, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 09.11.2005. As per request of the workman- petitioner, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 21.03.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 10.03.2006 to send his legal opinion to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana whether case is fit for filing writ petition or not? But the District Attorney, Rohtak sent his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 29.06.2006. After that the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instruction vide letter dated 11.07.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana that writ petition be filed against the award. After receipt the instructions from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Dadri was directed vide letter No. 2615 dated 20.10.2006 and 3745 dated 30.01.2007 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 09.08.2005. But, the Range Forest Officer, Dadri failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the erring official. After completing the formalities and completion of papers by the petitioner office, draft writ petition was prepared and submitted to the Advocate General, Haryana office on 3.3.2009. After vetting the draft writ petition, the writ petition is being filed after a period of 3 years and 6 CWP No. 6245 of 2009 -3- months delay. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay may please be condoned on the grounds stated above.” A perusal of the above would show that the workman was reinstated in service subject however to the decision of the writ petition in the year 2006. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 29.06.2006. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions on 11.07.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file writ petition challenging the award. Range Forest Officer, Dadri was directed vide letter No. 2615 dated 20.10.2006 and 3745 dated 30.01.2007 to file writ petition against the award dated 09.08.2005. From 30.01.2007 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition has been expressed and disciplinary action has been initiated against the erring official. He submits that the explanation, as given for the delay, may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. He further submits that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The explanation, as given by the petitioners, which has been reproduced above, does not show that the petitioner had been vigilant enough in pursuing the matter. The award in favour of the workman was passed by the Labour Court on 09.08.2005. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 09.11.2005. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 21.03.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. Thereafter, the explanation, which has come on record, speaks for itself CWP No. 6245 of 2009 -4- with regard to the action taken for challenging the impugned award. Request on behalf of the petitioner was addressed to the District Attorney, Rohtak vide letter dated 10.03.2006 to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter dated 29.06.2006. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 11.07.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file the writ petition challenging the award. Thereafter, Range Forest Officer, Dadri was directed vide letter No. 2615 dated 20.10.2006 and 3745 dated 30.01.2007 to file the writ petition in the High Court. From 30.01.2007 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 24.04.2009, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay, which would reflect upon the bona-fides and the care and caution put in by the department in pursuing its remedy before this Court. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of 2 years and 3 months. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition. Further, the findings have been recorded by the Labour Court that the State, despite having been called for to produce the records, has failed to produce the same leading to the Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner, therefore, holding that the workman had continuously worked with the petitioner from 5/1989 to 04.08.1998. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with as well as the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the CWP No. 6245 of 2009 -5- workman has been taken back in service and is continuing with the petitioner in accordance with the letter dated 21.03.2006, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 27, 2009 pj