IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003 Date of decision: 27.11.2009 State of Haryana ....Petitioner versus Bir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the demand notice dated 26.03.1996. The workman had complained that he had been engaged as a daily wager in September 1981 and that he had been terminated from service in the year 1987. The contention of the management was that the demand itself had been made nearly 10 years after the alleged termination. The contention was also that there was no order of termination but the workman himself had voluntarily abandoned the services. Previously the reference was rejected on the ground of delay but by a direction of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13321 of 2000, Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003 - 2 - the Labour Court was directed to consider whether there was any justification for the delay and whether the claim had become stale or not. Before the Labour Court, no evidence had been given except his statement that he had made many representations to the management to take him back to service. The Court found, on admission by the management that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service before April 1987, granted the relief as mentioned above. 2. The learned counsel Shri Nalwa states that a person like a daily wager who does not press himself for service, it could not be expected of the management to secure his presence and reinstate him. The very fact that the demand notice was made nearly 10 years and reference was obtained thereafter showed that the management's contention was true that the workman had abandoned his services. His further contention was that no explanation had been given by the workman and the claim had become stale and the reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court was unjustified. The learned counsel for the workman counters the allegations to the fact that even in the previous proceedings in Civil Writ Petition No.13321 of 2000, there had been sufficient material placed to show that there had been representations made by the workman to the management and if the claim was not barred by limitation since the law does not prescribe a plea of limitation, the relief of reinstatement for non-compliance of statutory mandate under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to him. 3. It has been stated times without number that merely because there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003 - 3 - reinstatement will not be ordered as a matter of course. Again, it will have to be considered in the context of the availability of work and the nature of engagement. I find that apart from denying the workman's entitlement the management was not contended that it has not possible to accommodate him to the same post on the ground that there was no work available. I see no reason to vary the relief of reinstatement. If the Labour Court had considered the issue of reinstatement favourably and his entitlement to back wages, I restrict the latter portion of back wages alone to the period from the date of award of the Labour Court viz., from 04.06.2003 instead of the direction for full back wags from the date of the demand notice on 26.03.1996. Subject to this variation, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.11.2009 sanjeev