IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. Date of Decision : May 05, 2009. The Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Morinda. ....... Petitioner. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and another. ......Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5), order dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6) and order dated 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-7), wherein the application moved under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the workman on the basis of award dated 10.05.1993 (Annexure-P-1), has been allowed in favour of the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5) cannot stand in view of the fact that the workman was appointed on casual seasonal worker and on the passing of the C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. award in his favour granting him reinstatement with continuity of service, he should have joined as a casual seasonal worker and, therefore, order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5), is contrary to the said position wherein the workman has been granted the benefit of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the period 17.09.1993 to 16.10.1994 as a regular employee. He submits that in the subsequent application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act preferred by the workman, orders whereof have been passed on 20.03.2008 (Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7), the Labour Court has granted the benefit to the workman treating him as a seasonal worker. He, therefore, contends that the findings as has come in the subsequent orders clearly show that an illegality was committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5). He contends that immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings in pursuance to the award dated 14.03.1997 wherein the petitioner- management un-successfully challenged this award till the Supreme Court, the workman, vide letter dated 27.10.1994 was called upon to be present on duty on 30.10.1994 which the workman failed to join. Thereafter, registered letter was sent to him which again the workman failed to respond, leading to publication in daily Ajit, dated 31.12.1994, to which the respondent- workman replied that the question of his joining as a seasonal employee does not arise and he be reinstated in accordance with award passed by the Labour Court. On this basis, counsel for the petitioner contends that the Management was always ready and willing to take back the workman and, therefore, for non joining of the workman, the Management cannot be held responsible and he shall not be entitled to the claim, benefit of which has -2- C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. been granted to the workman by the Labour Court for the period 01.11.1994 onwards till the date of his joining duty. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman submits that order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5) stands already complied with. He further submits that the order has attained finality for the reason that it has not been challenged within a reasonable time and the Management cannot be allowed to approach this Court and challenge the order dated 14.03.1997 after 11 years thereby to turn around and unsettle the situation by challenging the same in the present writ petition. The rights between the parties stood crystalised and if the said order is interfered with at this stage, it would amount to un-settling a settled position at a belated stage. He further submits that the findings have already been given by the Labour Court in its order dated 14.03.1997(Annexure-P-5) where the Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the question of the workman not being allowed to join as per the award and a finding has been recorded that the Management was at fault as it had not been allowing the workman to join his duties. He also submits that even the Local Commissioner was appointed by the Labour Court to oversee and supervise the reinstatement of the workman which effort also failed. On these basis, he submits that the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted and the impugned orders Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7 deserve to be upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as impugned orders. Order Annexure-P-5 is dated 14.03.1997 and it is an admitted position that the benefit which has accrued out of the said order stood already paid to the workman. The said order was not challenged by the -3- C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. Management before the appropriate Forum and has attained finality. Although, there is no limitation as such prescribed for taking re-course to writ jurisdiction but the said right of approaching the Court in exercise of the provisions contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be within a reasonable period. In the present case, the order was passed on 14.03.1997 and the benefit of the said order was granted to the workman much before the orders Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7 were passed. The Management could have approached this Court if they had any grouse with regard to claim granted to the workman or with regard to the findings which have been recorded therein at the appropriate stage. Having not challenged the same within a reasonable time and finding itself faced with a situation where subsequent orders have also been passed, they cannot now be allowed to disturb the settled situation and take back those benefits which accrued to the workman, vide order dated 14.03.1997 and which stood complied by them only because further claim which the workman has made has been granted to him. In any case, there is inordinate delay i.e. more than 11 years in challenging the order dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-P-5), and no explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching this Court for challenging this order has been submitted in the present writ petition. That being so, challenge to Annexure- P-5, being belated, cannot be accepted and, therefore, is rejected. Now, coming to orders Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7 wherein the claim as made by the workman which hinges primarily on the issue with regard to liability of the Management to pay the wages for the period as claimed by the workman i.e. from 17.10.1994 to 16.11.1997. The same would be dependent upon the fact whether the workman was ready and -4- C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. willing to join and whether the Management allowed him to join or whether the workman failed to report for duty despite of he being called upon by the Management to do so. Although, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various communications, copies whereof have been placed as Annexure-P-2 to Annexure-P-4 but in the light of the categoric finding given by the Labour Court in its order dated 14.03.1997, wherein it has been held that the workman had submitted his joining report to the Management in compliance of the award dated 10.05.1993 but the Management was in no mood to provide him duty in terms of the said award, those documents and the assertions of counsel for the petitioner, cannot stand scrutiny of the Court. Findings as recorded by the Labour Court on 14.03.1997, having initially accepted by the Management and the order having been given effect to without it being challenged earlier and the said findings being between the parties to the dispute, it would not be open to the Management now to unsettle the findings given by the Labour Court in its earlier proceedings. In the light of the findings referred to above, orders Annexure-P-6 and Annexure-P-7 dated 20.03.2008, cannot be said to be in violation of law and the findings as have been recorded, cannot be said to be perverse which would call for interference by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings as initially recorded may be binding upon the parties but if they are challenged at a later stage if an illegality has been committed, it should not be allowed to perpetuate and the benefit which has accrued to the workman, although may not be taken back, but subsequent benefits on the basis of erroneous findings, cannot be allowed to be granted to the workman. This contention of counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted in the light of what has -5- C.W.P. No. 16924 of 2008. been held above wherein findings having attained finality are not open to challenge in subsequent proceedings when the facts and basis of the claim is the same. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 05, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter : Yes / No. -6-