Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. Date of decision:28-1-2008 Satpal ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Vikas Sakhul Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S. Nalwa, Addl. AG Haryana. Mr.R.A.Yadav Advocate for respondent No.3. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. In this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the award of the Labour Court dated 4.2.1998 is challenged as being illegal, void and against the settled proposition of law. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:- Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. -2- The petitioner was working as Secretary with respondent No.3 since 23.7.1976. He worked with respondent No.3 since 23.7.1976 regularly and without any break till 22.3.1988 when his services were terminated without following procedure under the law and on the basis of unfair and unjust inquiry got conducted by the respondent No.3. Being dis-satisfied by the order dated 23.3.1988, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana Chandigarh. No information about the decision of appeal filed by the petitioner was ever conveyed to him by the Registrar Co- operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh. Being dis-satisfied by the behaviour of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 24.1.1997 challenging the termination of his services. From the written statement filed by respondent No.3, the petitioner had come to know that his appeal had been dismissed on 10.3.1989. The Labour Court vide its award dated 4.2.1998 dismissed the reference filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has attacked the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court has wrongly treated the issue of limitation as preliminary one and that, too, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to lead any evidence; that the delay and laches cannot be made a ground for striking down a reference as making a reference is an administrative action for which the Government is the final authority and that the dismissal of the petitioner was by way of punishment. Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. -3- The petition has been opposed by respondent No.3 and in the written statement, it has been averred that the petitioner while working as a Secretary in Basdhera Cooperative Credit Service Society, Lalupura Cooperative Credit & Service Society Limited, Kalrwali Cooperative Credit Service Society, Limited, Basdhara Credit Service Society Limited, embezzled Rs.76632.70P, Rs.3125.51P, Rs.3,684/- and Rs.2,014/- respectively from the funds of the above-said Cooperative Societies. Consequently, he was charge-sheeted and fair and proper inquiry was conducted against him after providing full opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with law and natural justice. He was found guilty of the above-said embezzlement and his services were terminated on 1.12.1986. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 10.3.1989 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana in the presence of Shri S.S.Dalal, counsel for the petitioner. Even in letter dated 14.4.1997 addressed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, it was clearly mentioned that the appeal was dismissed on 10.3.1989. The said order has attained finality. It has also been pleaded the impugned award is just and legal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been non-suited on the ground of delay in making the reference. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 22.3.1988. The petitioner preferred departmental appeal against the said order of Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. -4- termination. The petitioner vide letter dated 17.4.1997 was intimated that his appeal has been dismissed on 10.3.1989. The reference was made on 24.1.1997. So, it cannot be said in any manner that the reference is belated one. Therefore, the case be remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding issue No.1 regarding limitation in favour of the petitioner afresh. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The learned Labour Court has given a finding that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in his presence. So, the petitioner cannot take benefit of letter dated 17.4.1997. Counsel for the petitioner, however, could not point out how the reference was made on 24.1.1997 when according to the petitioner, the order of dismissal was conveyed to him on 17.4.1997. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was present at the time of deciding his appeal on 10.3.1989 cannot be set aside as no material to contradict that fact has been placed on the file. The petitioner has not even annexed the order of Appellate Authority dated 10.3.1989 fully knowing the fact that his presence and that of his counsel might be recorded in that order. In authority reported as Haryana State Coop.Land Dev. Bank Versus Neelam, 2005 AIR (SC) 1843, it has been held that where the demand notice is served after 7 years, the Government or the Court is not obliged to entertain a stale claim. It has Civil Writ Petition No.5288 of 1999. -5- been further held in that authority that procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and doctrine of acceptance subsilentio are applicable even to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. In authority reported as State of Punjab Versus Sh.Kali Dass and another, Vol.CXV(1997-1) Punjab Law Reporter 589, it has been held that where demand notice was given after 7 years, the workman cannot be allowed to approach the Labour Court. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for interference and consequently writ petition stands dismissed. January 28,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge