CWP No. 15765 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15765 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Vijay Pal Singh s/o Sh. Raghubir Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 07.09.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, wherein reference made on a demand notice served by the petitioner-workman stands answered CWP No. 15765 of 2009 2 against him as he had failed to produce any evidence in support of the claim statement made by him before the Labour Court. The order dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure P-5) has also been challenged vide which an application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the Award dated 07.09.2006 was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak as the same had been filed beyond a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Award as the Labour Court has been rendered functus officio. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman- petitioner could not come present in the Court on the date fixed as his Authorized Representative did not inform him about the date fixed nor was he informed that the case has been fixed for evidence and cost of Rs. 200/- was imposed by the Labour Court. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner and non-payment of the cost, the evidence and the claim of the petitioner was struck off by the Labour Court. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the petitioner-workman, the Labour Court after relying upon the statement and the evidence led by the Management proceeded to decide the reference against the workman. He contends that non-appearance of the workman before the Labour Court was neither intentional nor deliberate as he would not have gained anything by delaying the process before the Labour Court. He further contends that the petitioner had immediately, on having come to know about the Award passed by the Labour Court, filed an application before the Court for setting aside the impugned Award dated 07.09.2006 but the same was also rejected by the Labour Court vide order dated 12.06.2009 as it was moved beyond a period of 30 days from the date of publication of the Award. He prays for one opportunity for leading his evidence so that the matter could be adjudicated on merits. CWP No. 15765 of 2009 3 On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner was highly belated. He was appointed on fixed term basis vide appointment order dated 01.10.1987 (Annexure R-1) and his services were terminated on 29.02.1988 vide order (Annexure R-II). The demand raised by the workman is dated 23.04.2001 (Annexure P-7), which was highly belated and it was a stale claim. He submits that even if the case is taken on merits, the workman had only worked with the respondents-Management for five months' and therefore there was no violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in terminating the services of the workman. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the records would show that opportunities were granted to the workman to lead evidence after the pleadings were completed. On 07.09.2006, the case was again fixed for evidence of the workman but it was subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. but the cost was not paid nor evidence was present on behalf of the workman leading to the striking of the claim of the workman. In support of the contention of the Management, the Management produced Sh. Vijay Kumar, Ticket Verifier, O/o General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Bhiwani as MW-1. In his examination-in-chief, he had specifically stated that the workman had not completed 240 days during his service period. He has further produced the appointment letter of the workman dated 01.10.1987 Ex.M-1 and the letter of termination of the services of the workman dated 29.02.1988 Ex. M-2. This shows that the workman had only worked with the Management for a period of five months. In the present writ petition also, the stand of the Management CWP No. 15765 of 2009 4 is that the petitioner had only worked with them from 01.10.1987 to 29.02.1988. There is nothing on record to suggest that the workman, as he has claimed, had worked as Helper in Engine Shop w.e.f. 02.09.1987 to 01.03.1998. This clearly shows that the claim made by the workman, is not bona-fide. The Award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law as despite the opportunities granted to the workman, he failed to lead evidence and when one last opportunity was granted which was subject to payment of cost, no evidence was produced nor the cost was paid, the Court had no option but to proceed to strike off the claim of the workman which had rightly been done. The evidence produced by the Management has been properly appreciated and the findings recorded thereon are fully justified. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not intentionally absented himself from the proceedings before the Labour Court, also cannot be accepted for the reason that even the application for setting aside the Award dated 07.09.2006 (Annexure P- 1) was filed after a period of one year. This shows that the workman was not interested in pursuing his remedy before the Labour Court. He had to be much more vigilant and careful to pursue his claim before the Labour Court which he has evidently failed. The order dated 12.06.2009 passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law as the application filed by the workman-petitioner for setting aside the Award dated 07.09.2006 was filed beyond a period of 30 days from the publication of the Award. No illegality has been committed by the Labour Court while passing its Award dated 07.09.2006 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure P-5) which would call for any interference by this Court. CWP No. 15765 of 2009 5 Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 10, 2010 pj