IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.668 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.7.2009 The Haryana State Federation of Consumers’ Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (CONFED). -----Appellant Vs. The Haryana Confed Employees Welfare Union. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing giving of retrenchment compensation in accordance with the rules, which was over and above the amount of compensation stipulated under Rule 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Delay of 60 days is condoned, subject to just exceptions. Heard on merits. 3. The respondent is a Union of employees. Its members were recruited as Salesmen in the year 1981 with the appellant. The employees are governed by the Confed Staff LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) Service Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”), framed under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, (later replaced by the 1984 Act). Rule 35(b) of the Rules provided for retrenchment compensation equal to one month’s pay and allowances for every completed year of service which was more than that stipulated under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employees were also entitled to the benefit of encashment of earned leave upto maximum of one month. 4. In December, 2000, the posts of Salesmen were abolished. Some of the affected employees filed writ petition in this Court which was dismissed and thereafter, they preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking benefit in terms of Rule 35(b) of the Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 21.11.2005 in Civil Appeal No.302 of 2004 Rajinder Singh Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Haryana and others, held that they were entitled to benefit under Rule 35(b) of the Rules. Thereafter, the respondent-Union filed a petition in this Court, claiming the said benefits. The petition was opposed, mainly on the ground that the petition was barred by laches. Retrenchment had taken place in the year 2000 and the writ petition has been filed after eight years. Even judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been rendered in the year 2005. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme 2 LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) Court in Bhoop Singh v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414 and State of Karnataka v. S. M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267. 5. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and distinguished the judgments in Bhoop Singh (supra) and S. M. Kotrayya (supra), relying upon subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha 2006(2) SCC 747 and DB judgment of this Court in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryanab 2002(3) RSJ 38. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Admittedly, the employees were entitled to benefit under Rule 35(b) of the Rules. No doubt they did not assert their right when the cause of action arose in the year 2000. There is delay in filing the petition even after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Normal rule is not to entertain a stale claim but to advance the interest of justice, in a given case, the Court may entertain a belated claim having regard to nature of right violated, extent of delay, explanation if any and other relevant factors. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has rejected objection of delay in view of parity of employees who had been given benefit, nature of right being statutorily recognised right of compensation and no third party right having accrued. The appellant was required to fulfill its statutory obligations to the employees who had rendered about 20 years of service. The appellant is, in substance, a Government organization. It is not pleaded that there is great financial 3 LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) hardship or any other equitable consideration which may justify denial of relief. We do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 28, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4