WP(C) No.7843/2008 Page 1 of 2 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.7843/2009 Date of Decision : 30.03.2009 Shri Surender Kumar (Workman) ……Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Goel,Advocate Versus The Presiding Officer (LC No.XVIII) …… Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court-XVIII in ID No.86/2008 in case titled as The Workman Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs. The Management M/s Ashok Hotel. 2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner regarding his dismissal/discharge is barred by time inasmuch as according to Section 10(4) (A) the Industrial Disputes Act regarding dismissal or discharge by a workman can be raised within a period of 12 months from the date of communication of the order of discharge/dismissal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notice of termination of his service dated 15.6.2007 was received by him by post on 15.7.2007 and thereupon the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and filed his statement of claim before the Labour WP(C) No.7843/2008 Page 2 of 2 Court on 8th July, 2008 which happens to be well within a period of 12 months from the date of his alleged communication of termination order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned Labour Court has come to a finding of fact that the dismissal/termination of services of the workman has taken place on 15th June, 2007. The termination order dated 15.6.2007 was sent to the petitioner by post, which was received undelivered with the report that the petitioner despite repeated attempts of the postal authorities was refusing to receive the same. As it was stated in the termination order dated 15.6.2007 that services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect, therefore, the learned Labour Court has reckoned the period of limitation of one year w.e.f. 15.6.2007 itself. On the said touchstone, the petition which is purported to have been filed by the petitioner on 8th July, 2008 has been held to be barred by limitation. 5. I do not find any infirmity and perversity in the order which has been passed by the Labour Court, accordingly, the same does not warrant an interference. The writ petition is dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J. March 30, 2009 RN