C.W.P. No. 13588 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13588 of 2005 Date of decision : ... The Senior Executive Engineer, DS Divn. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sangrur ................ petitioner vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... K.C. Puri, J. The employer has preferred the writ petition impugning the award dated 3.5.2005 passed by Sh. Gobinder Singh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala vide which the reference made by Mohinder Singh-workman was answered in his favour and the employer was directed to pay the arrears of pay on the basis of last drawn wages from the date of demand notice till the date of his retirement. It was further observed by the Labour Court that in case the management failed to make the payment of the said amount within four months from the publication of the award, the workman would be entitled to get interest on the above amount @ 6% per C.W.P. No. 13588 of 2005 -2- annum till its realization. Workman-Mohinder Singh raised an industrial dispute before the Punjab Government. That dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala. According to the workman, he worked with the management from 1.4.1988 to 29.9.1989 continuously as daily wager. The management illegally terminated the services of the workman on 29.9.1989 without any notice, enquiry or compensation. The petitioner has been drawing the wages @ Rs.633/- per month. The workman has been unemployed since his termination. The workman has requested the management many times to reinstate him but to no effect. Workman served demand notice on 22.7.1999. Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 before the Labour Court did not file any reply and only respondent No.2 Executive Engineer PS Division, PSEB, Sangrur has filed the written reply pleading that their office came into existence in 11/95. The office has no concern with RI Division. At present there is no RI Division /Senior Division of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The workman has claimed that he worked from 1.4.1988 to 28.9.1989, whereas this office was not in existence. Learned Labour Court held that the workman has completed 240 days and consequently, the reference was answered in favour of the workman as detailed above. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid award, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. The main ground of attack by the petitioner is that the services of the workman were terminated on 28.9.1989 but the reference was made on 22.7.1999 i.e. after a period of about 10 years. On that account, the award is liable to be set aside. C.W.P. No. 13588 of 2005 -3- The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and only the back wages from 1999 i.e. the date of filing the reference till his retirement has been allowed by the learned Labour Court. There is no period of limitation under the Industrial Disputes Act for filing the reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority Director,Food & Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh and another vs. Ashwani Kumar and another 2004 (2) RSJ 351 and on the strength of the same, it has been argued that stale claim cannot be adjudicated by the Labour Court. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the record of the case. In case, the delay in filing the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is explained, the Labour Court can mould the relief regarding back wages. In the present case also, the learned Labour Court has allowed the last drawn wages from the date of demand notice till his retirement. No back wages for the intervening period of 10 years for which he has not made the reference has been allowed. In the authority, Ajaib Singh vs. The Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. reported in 1999 (2) SCT 667: 1999 (86) AIR (SC) 1351, it has been held that if the management did not take any plea of delay nor any issue framed by the Labour Court, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion to deprive the workman from the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. The fight between the workman and management is not a fight between equal. In the present case also, as discussed above, there is no pleading of the petitioner C.W.P. No. 13588 of 2005 -4- that reference has been made after a period of delay. The workman has placed on file the document in which he has requested the management on 25.8.1991 (Exhibit W-7), 29.9.1992 (Exhibit W-6), 6.4.1997 (Exhibit W-5) and 3.6.1999 (Exhibit W-4) to reinstate him. So the workman has been agitating before the management to take him back and that fact has not been denied by the petitioner. So, in these circumstances, the delay is explained and in view of the authority Ajaib Singh's case (supra) no ground is made out for interference in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) Judge ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) February 2008 Judge chug