Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. Date of decision:16-1-2008. Bijender Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: V.D.Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This judgment will govern the disposal of Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007 and Civil Writ Petition No.11231 of 2007 as identical questions of fact and law are involved in the same. Facts have, however, been extracted from instant Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. The petitioner has impugned order dated 25.9.2006 passed by Special Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department, Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -2- Chandigarh and seeks quashing of the same through the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:- The petitioner worked with respondent No.2 as Beldar on daily wages from 1.10.1993 to 31.7.1998 continuously without any break. He joined in place of one Shri Rakesh who was his near relative and expired on 28.12.1997, due to illness. His work and conduct was satisfactory and there was no complaint against him. He worked with due diligence and in accordance with the discipline of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 verbally terminated his services on 1.8.1998. The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2 for allowing him to join duty and also made many representations in this regard. He termed his termination order as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act). The petitioner also served legal notice but to no effect. Ultimately, the petitioner raised industrial dispute by serving a demand notice in which he mentioned that he had completed 240 days of service and there was no complaint against him. No notice, charge sheet or retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Rajinder Singh and Nafish, who were juniors to him were working. In consequence of demand notice, the petitioner and the management appeared before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Sonepat. Both the parties projected their case there. Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -3- The petitioner has further pleaded that respondent No.1 refused to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court vide order dated 25.9.2006 on the ground that there was a delay of eight years. He further pleaded that the order of making a reference to the Labour Court is an administrative order. It is well settled principle that it was not open to the State Government to go into the merits of the case and refuse the reference. Therefore, respondent No.1 had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing rejection order. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, repudiating the claim of the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the demand notice/representation of the petitioner has rightly been decided by the respondent No.1. As per record, the petitioner had only worked for five months. The petitioner had raised an industrial dispute vide demand notice dated 15.12.2005 i.e after a lapse of eight years. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court that the appropriate Government is competent authority to examine prima facie merits of the case . If after such examination, the appropriate government comes to the conclusion that the dispute suffers from delay and laches and there was no satisfactory explanation for such delay, the appropriate Government can reject the same on merits being competent authority. As such, the Labour Department, Haryana, Chandigarh being competent authority rightly rejected the demand notice. The petitioner was not covered under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act as he Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -4- had not completed 240 days. The impugned order, Annexure P10, is impeccable. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government has non-suited the workman on the ground of delay only. The petitioner had been making representations to the management during the period of 8 or 9 years but no action has been taken by it. In authority Karam Singh Versus M/s Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board, 2007(4) Recent Services Judgments 674, it has been held that in case of delay in making the reference, the Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. Otherwise also, the Government has no power to adjudicate upon the claim under Section 10 of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Parbhu Ram Versus State of Haryana and another, 2006(3) Service Cases Today 828. We have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. So far as authority Parbhu Ram's case (supra) is concerned, that authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case In that authority, it has been held that the Government cannot entertain the merits of the case for holding the retrenchment valid or Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -5- not. There is not dispute with this proposition of law laid down in that ruling. In the present case, the Government has not decided the dispute between the parties but relying upon the authority Nadun Gandhi Bank Ltd.Vs. K.P.Madhvan Kutty, reported in 2000(1) SCT 1088 has refused the reference being more than eight years old. The explanation given by the petitioner that he made representation is not acceptable as no postal receipt has been placed on the file. The said representation seems to have been prepared to cover up the delay by the petitioner. In Nadun Gandhi Bank Ltd.'s case (supra), it has been held that long unexplained delay is fatal to the case of workman. Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Haryana State Coop.Land Dev. Bank Versus Neelam, reported in 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 1843 has held that where demand notice is served after seven years, the workman is not entitled to any relief. It has been held in the said ruling that procedural laws like estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and doctrine of acceptance subsilentio are applicable even to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. In Ram Chander Morya Versus State of Haryana, reported as 1991(1) SCT 141, a Full Bench of our own High Court has held that the Government can refuse to make a reference on the ground of delay and laches if there is a delay of five years without any explanation. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any Civil Writ Petition No.1485 of 2007. -6- illegality in the order of the Government refusing to make reference. Consequently, both the petitions stands dismissed. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge January 16 ,2008. (Ashutosh Mohunta ) Jaggi Judge