Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. Date of decision:28.2.2008. Mangal Singh and others. ...Petitioners. Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi Advocate for the petitioners. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Petitioners workmen of Partap Paper Mils Limited , Batala have preferred the present writ petition for quashing award dated 1.6.2007, Annexure P-1, passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. Nineteen demand notices made by the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were referred to Labour Court, Gurdaspur for adjudication. According to the case of the petitioners, they were Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. -2- workmen. Their services were terminated on 30.7.1993 without any notice, charge sheet and inquiry and without payment of any retrenchment compensation. The termination of services of workmen is illegal, unlawful and unjustified. They have worked for more than four years and were drawing salary as detailed in the demand notice. On notice, the management contested the claim of the workmen and filed reply. It took preliminary objection that the demand notice dated 14.8.1997 has been served after more than four years of alleged termination. The same is time barred. The workmen have claimed termination on 30.7.1993 whereas as per their claim, they have claimed wages for the months of August and September, 1993 in their application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and have stated that they had worked till September, 1993. The services of the petitioners were terminated as they participated in a strike with effect from 1.6.1993 and have not joined their duties thereafter. The strike was declared illegal by the Government. The petitioners were directed to join their duties and were given notice through publication in Daily Ajit on 26.7.1993 besides placing the same on the notice board. The petitioners have mis-conducted as they have not joined their duties within three days, the time given in the notice. The services of the petitioners were terminated for participating in illegal strike and continuous default by authorised absence coupled with abusing filthy language and slinging threats and as such the said Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. -3- order is legal and justified. In all 19 references were made before the Labour Court. The management filed reply in all the references. The Labour Court passed impugned one award dated 1.6.2007 while deciding all the references. The Labour Court has held that the demand notice has been issued after four years and that the petitioners have participated in an illegal strike. They have failed to join duties in spite of repeated reminders and notices. So, the order of termination order passed by the management is quite justified and in order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the management has closed the mill on the pretext of changing the Jalli and that the petitioners have not participated in the strike. The learned Labour Court has dealt with this aspect of the case. It has been observed that in the replication or in any other pleading, the petitioners have not pleaded that the fact that the management has closed the mill for changing the Jalli and on that count the statements of two workmen, in this regard, cannot be accepted. No doubt, no time is fixed in the Act for serving a demand notice but the delay in serving the demand notice has to be explained by the workmen. According to the management, there is a delay of four years in serving the demand notice and there is no explanation of any type given by the workmen on the file. The workmen have resorted Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. -4- to strike and have not joined duties in spite of reminders and also even after publication in the newspaper and affixing notice on the notice board. The learned Labour Court has dealt with various authorities i.e. Employees in relation to the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Versus Their Workmen represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, 2006(2) RSJ 184 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Versus K.P.Madhavankutty and others, 2002(2) SCC 455 etc. to deal with the aspect of delay. No doubt, the workmen cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay alone but the other circumstances of the present case are such which do not call for any interference in the impugned award. As discussed above, the petitioners have not joined their duties in spite of repeated reminders. According to the respondents, the Government has declared the strike as illegal and in spite of that, the petitioners have not joined their duties. They have not raised any little finger for more than four years when their services were terminated. In authority reported as Haryana State Coop. Land Dev. Bank Versus Neelam, 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 1843, it has been held that although there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, but it does not mean that irrespective of facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the Government or the Court. The procedural laws like estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and doctrine of Acceptance Sub silentio are applicable even to the proceedings under the Industrial Civil Writ Petition No.2984 of 2008. -5- Disputes Act. So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for interference in the impugned award is made out. Consequently, this writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge February 28,2008. ( Mehtab S. Gill ) Jaggi Judge