LPA No. 430 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 430 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.5.2009 Davinder Kumar ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the appellant. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition against the award of the Labour Court. The Labour Court adjudicated upon reference of industrial dispute raised by the workman and held that the workman was not entitled to any relief. 2. The workman was employed as a Peon with the Marketing Board. His services were terminated on 23.5.1987 on the charges including the charge that he produced a fake matriculation certificate for seeking upgradation in job, apart from the unauthorised absence, misbehaviour and insubordination. The charges were admitted by the workman. The workman raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court held that the workman having admitted the charges, which fact was duly proved, and the dispute having been raised after 12 years, the dispute was abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Single Judge LPA No. 430 of 2009 2 has affirmed the said finding. 3. Learned Single Judge held that mere fact that the workman was later on acquitted in a criminal case relating to charge of forgery, did not make affect the order of dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It has been submitted that delay by the workman was on account of pendency of criminal case and that the workman had not admitted the charges. The order of dismissal shows that the same was passed not only on the charge of forgery, for which criminal case was registered, but also other charges which were duly admitted. The workman never challenged the order of dismissal for more than 12 years for which there is no valid explanation. It is well settled that a stale industrial dispute cannot be subject matter of reference for adjudication Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nodungadi Bank Ltc. Vs. K.P.Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC 455 and Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam, AIR 2005 SC 1843. Even otherwise, the Labour Court having recorded a finding of fact that the workman had admitted the charges and the said finding having been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, no ground is made out for interference. 6. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 25.5.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE