IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3347 of 2011 Decided on: 25.5.2011. __________________________________________________________ Bata India Limited … Petitioners. Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court & others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma. The challenge herein in this civil writ petition is against the award dated 17.11.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in reference No. 71 of 1998, Joginder Pal versus The Managing Director, Bata India Ltd. and others, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the I.D. Act) and order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the said Tribunal in the application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act. 2. Operative part of the award dated 17.11.2005, annexure P-2, under Section 10 of the I.D. Act is as follows:- “Relief: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 above, petitioner is held entitled for re-instatement in service with continuity and seniority in service. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to the wages from the date of reference i.e. w.e.f. 9th July, 1998. Accordingly, the reference is answered. Let a copy of this award be sent to appropriate government for publication in the official gazette. The case file after completion be consigned to record room.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The application under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act was disposed of vide order dated 15.9.2010, Annexure P-3, in the following terms:- “The perusal of Annexure-A, goes to show that the calculations have been made by the applicant, in support of his contention that as to how and in what manner, the amount of Rs. 2,59,198/-, is due to him from the respondents. As far as respondents are concerned, they have failed to bring on record such calculations that the claim, as raised by the applicant, is not correct, in terms of the award, aforesaid, passed by this Court. In the absence of such material from the respondents, I hold that the applicant is entitled to recover Rs. 2,59,198/- from the respondents in terms of award dated 7.11.2005, passed in reference No. 71/1998. Let an attested copy of this order be sent to the Labour Commissioner for taking necessary steps in order to get recovered the aforesaid amount from the respondent, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Be consigned to records.” 4. In so far as the attack on the award dated 17.11.2005, Annexure P-2, under Section 10 of the I.D. Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the writ petition, which was filed on 11.5.2011, suffers from inordinate delay and laches, which remains totally unexplained, except the averment set up vide para 43 of the petition to the effect that “there was change in the legal department set up in the head office and the files remained pending due to above reason”, which is no ground, what to say of a legal ground for entertaining the writ petition after lapse of about 5 ½ years. And yet we may also make an observation that the award is just, reasonable and based on evidence. The termination is without conducting any enquiry and hence bad in law. That is what is rightly held by the Labour Court. 3 5. Now while adverting to the order dated 15.9.2010, Annexure P-3, under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, it would be seen that the same is based on the relief granted in favour of respondent No.2 by the Tribunal vide the aforesaid award dated 17.11.2005, Annexure P-2, and his entitlement thereunder has been duly computed in terms of money to the tune of Rs. 2,59,198/-, with which also no fault can be found in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In view of the above, the petition being without any merit is accordingly dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 2,500/-, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) May 25, 2011. Judge. (cr)