IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8874 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.05.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani .....PETITIONER VERSUS Sh. Rati Ram s/o Sh. Chhotu Ram, Village Nikgana Khurd, Tehsil Tosham District Bhiwani and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No. 1 holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. dated 17.11.2000 The impugned award is dated 13.11.2006 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of CWP No. 8874 of 2009 -2- 2 years 6 months as the writ petition was filed on 29.05.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “8. That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 13.11.2006 and after the publication of award, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 23.02.2007. As per request of the workman- respondent, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 06.03.2007 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 06.03.2007 to send his legal opinion to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana whether case is fit for filing writ petition or not? The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 04.04.2007. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana sent his opinion vide letter dated 25.4.2007 that the case is not fit for filing Civil Writ Petition. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana again requested by the petitioners-Management vide letter dated 25.6.2008 that the department wants to file writ petition against the award dated 13.11.2006. Therefore, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instruction vide letter dated 11.7.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana, that writ petition be filed against the award. After receipt the instruction from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Bawani Khera was directed vide letter No. 2300 dated 25.7.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 13.11.2006. But, CWP No. 8874 of 2009 -3- the Range Forest Officer, Bawani Khera failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the erring official. After completing the formalities and completion of papers by the petitioner's office, draft writ petition was prepared and submitted to the Advocate General, Haryana office for vetting. After vetting the draft petition, the writ petition is being filed after a period of about 2 years and 10 months delay. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay may please be condoned on the grounds stated above.” A perusal of the above would show that the workman was reinstated in service subject however to the decision of the writ petition in the year 2007. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 04.04.2007 to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana sent his opinion vide letter dated 25.4.2007 that the case is not fit for filing Civil Writ Petition. The petitioners-Management again requested the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 25.6.2008 to issue the instructions. Therefore, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 11.07.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file writ petition challenging the award. Range Forest Officer, Bawani Khera was directed vide letter No. 2300 dated 25.7.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 13.11.2006. From 25.07.2008 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition has been explained. He submits that the explanation, as given for the delay, may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. CWP No. 8874 of 2009 -4- He further submits that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The explanation, as given by the petitioner, which has been reproduced above, does not show that the petitioner had been vigilant enough in pursuing the matter. The award in favour of the workman was passed by the Labour Court on 13.11.2006. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 23.02.2007. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 06.03.2007 subject to decision of the writ petition. Thereafter, the explanation, which has come on record, speaks for itself with regard to the action taken for challenging the impugned award. Request on behalf of the petitioner was addressed to the District Attorney, Rohtak vide letter dated 06.03.2007 to send his legal opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The District Attorney, Rohtak sent his opinion to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide his letter dated 04.04.2007. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide his letter dated 25.4.2007 informed that the case is not fit for filing writ petition. The petitioners-Management again requested the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 25.6.2008 to issue the instructions. Therefore, the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana issued instructions vide letter dated 11.07.2008 to the Advocate General, Haryana to file writ petition challenging the award. Range Forest Officer, Bawani Khera was directed vide letter No. 2300 dated 25.7.2008 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 13.11.2006. From 25.07.2008 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 29.05.2009, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay, which would reflect upon the bona-fides and CWP No. 8874 of 2009 -5- the care and caution put in by the department in pursuing its remedy before this Court. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of 10 months. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition. Further, the findings have been recorded by the Labour court that the State, despite having been called for to produce the records, has failed to produce the same leading to the Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner. Further, it has been held that the workman had completed 240 days in every calendar year and also in the preceding year when service of the workman was terminated, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. In the light of the above and in view of the fact that the workman has been taken back in service and is continuing with the petitioner in accordance with the letter dated 06.03.2007, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 30, 2009 pj