IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14032 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 05, 2010. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Sh. Krishan Kumar s/o Sh. Devki, Village Unn, Post Office Bound Kalan, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 14.03.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the respondent No.-1/Workman 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 15.10.1998. The impugned award is dated 14.03.2006 and on being confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of more than 3 years and 5½ months as the writ petition was filed on 31.08.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-9 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “9. That the said award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 14.03.2006 and after the publication of award on 01.05.2006, the workman-respondent requested the petitioner for C.W.P. No. 14032 of 2009. -2- reinstatement on 17.07.2006. As per request of the workman/respondent No. 1, the workman was provisionally reinstated vide letter dated 17.08.2006 subject to decision of the writ petition. The District Attorney, Rohtak was also requested vide letter dated 24.08.2006 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 29.09.2006 . The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana sent his opinion vide letter dated 13.10.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana, that the writ petition be filed against the Award. After receipt the instruction from Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, Range Forest Officer, Dadri was directed vide letter No. 2734 dated 03.11.2006 that a writ petition be filed against the award dated 14.03.2006. But, the Range Forest Officer, Dadri, failed to file the writ petition against the award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the Range Forest Officer, Dadri. After completing the formalities and getting required papers from learned Labour Court on 10.06.2009 and 03.08.2009 by the petitioner's office and after vetting draft writ petition, the writ petition is being filed after a period of about 3 years and 4 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, however, subject to the decision of the writ petition in the year 2007. The opinion was given by the District Attorney on 29.09.2006 to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions vide letter dated 13.10.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana, that the writ petition be filed against the Award. But, the Range Forest Officer, Dadri, failed to file the writ petition against the Award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the Range Forest Officer, C.W.P. No. 14032 of 2009. -3- Dadri. From 03.11.2006 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever had come forth on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition was explained. He submits that the explanation given for the delay may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. He further contends that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the Award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workman states that in compliance with the Award passed by the Labour Court, the Workman already stood reinstated in service on 17.08.2006 and is continuing as such. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The explanation for delay in filing the writ petition, as given by the petitioner, reproduced in the preceding paragraph, 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 14.03.2006. The workman requested the petitioner for reinstatement on 17.07.2006. The workman was provisionally reinstated on 17.08.2006 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 24.08.2006 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 29.09.2006. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instruction, vide his letter dated 13.10.2006 to the Advocate General, Haryana, that the writ petition be filed against the Award. After receipt of instructions from Legal Remembrance, Haryana, C.W.P. No. 14032 of 2009. -4- Range Forest Officer, Dadri, was directed vide letter No. 2734 dated 03.11.2006 that a writ petition be filed against the Award dated 14.03.2006. But the Range Forest Officer, Dadri, failed to file the writ petition against the Award. Therefore, disciplinary action is being taken against the Range Forest Officer, Dadri. From 03.11.2006 till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 31.08.2009, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner explaining the delay, which would reflect upon the bona-fides and the care and caution taken by the department in pursuing its remedy before this Court. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of about 3 years and 5½ months. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition. Further, the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the State, despite having been called upon to produce the records, had failed to produce the same, compelling the Labour Court to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner. Further, it has been held that the workman had completed 240 days in the calendar year in the preceding 12 months when the 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 17.08.2006, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 05, 2010. sjks.