IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6417 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 29.04.2009 Union of India ....Petitioner(s) vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Chandigarh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present case, challenge is to the order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-4) vide which the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 preferred by the workman for claiming the salary on the post on which he has worked, has been allowed by the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the respondent-workman is highly belated and, therefore, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the application moved by the workman. He further contends that the records of the case were destroyed and, therefore, the same could not be produced and, as such,, the finding has been recorded by the Labour Court against the Management. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records of the award clearly indicates that the C.W.P.No.6417 of 2009 -2- factual aspect with regard to the workman having performed the duties of material checking clerk is not disputed. It is an admitted position that the workman worked as a material checking clerk from 15.7.1978 till 19.6.1985. When the factual aspect with regard to the claim which the workman has put in under Section 33-C (2) of the Act has not been disputed, the claim as granted by the Labour Court cannot be said to be vitiated merely because the records have been destroyed. The documents which have been placed on record by the workman were found to be correct and according to those documents, the workman had performed the duties of material checking Clerk. That being the position, as far as the facts and the documents are concerned, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner about the claim being belated would be too technical an objection to deprive a workman of his right, which factual aspect has not been disputed by the management. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the delay cannot be taken as a ground for curtailing the right of a workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Act as there is no limitation prescribed for making such claims. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. April 29, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No