CWP No. 7228 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7228 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.05.2009 The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Bhiwani now The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani .....PETITIONER VERSUS Krishna w/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Nehru Colony, Harijan Basti, City Station, Bhiwani and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. + *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 11.05.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent No. 1 holding her entitled to reinstatement on her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice dated 29.08.1998. The impugned award is dated 11.05.2004 and on being CWP No. 7228 of 2009 2 confronted with the question of approaching this Court after a delay of 5 years as the writ petition was filed on 12.05.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has referred to para-8 of the writ petition. The same is reproduced below:- “8. That the workman-respondent No. 1 had worked in Social Forestry Project, which has been winded up on 30.06.2004. The official record of office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The said award was passed on 11.05.2004 before the close of the Project. The court case file of the said award was closed in which no proceeding was under consideration. Hence, the said court case file was kept in closed files along with others. When the workman-respondent No. 1 demanded back wages vide her application dated 27.11.2008, the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about this award. After that the petitioner-Management requested to Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter No. 6274 dated 19.12.2008 that instruction for filing writ petition be issued to Advocate General, Haryana. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions to Advocate General, Haryana, vide letter dated 14.01.2009 for filing writ petition. Hence, the present petition is being filed after about 5 years delay which may please be condoned as per grounds stated above.” A perusal of the above would show that the workman- CWP No. 7228 of 2009 3 respondent No. 1 has worked in Social Forestry Project which has been winded up on 30.06.2004. The official record of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The impugned award dated 11.05.2004 had been passed before the close of Social Forestry Project and the official record of the Social Forestry Project was given in the charge of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about the award dated 11.05.2004 after the demand of back wages raised by the workman-respondent No. 1 vide her application dated 27.11.2008. Then, the Management requested to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana vide letter dated 6274 dated 19.12.2008 to issue instructions to the Advocate General, Haryana for filing writ petition. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions vide letter dated 14.01.2009 to the Advocate General, Haryana for filing writ petition. From 14.01.2009 till the date of filing of the writ petition, no explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay in filing the writ petition has been explained. He submits that the explanation, as given for the delay, may be accepted and the writ petition be entertained. He further submits that there is no limitation prescribed for challenging the award of the Labour Court and, therefore, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The explanation, as given by the petitioner, which has been reproduced above, does not show that the petitioner had been vigilant enough in pursuing the matter. The award in favour of the workman was CWP No. 7228 of 2009 4 passed by the Labour Court on 11.05.2004. The workman-respondent No. 1 has worked in Social Forestry Project which has been wound up on 30.06.2004. The official record of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Project, Bhiwani has been given to the charge of Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The impugned award dated 11.05.2004 had been passed before the close of Social Forestry Project and the official record of the Social Forestry Project was given in the charge of the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani. The Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial), Bhiwani came to know about the award dated 11.05.2004 after the demand of back wages raised by the workman- respondent No. 1 vide her application dated 27.11.2008. After that the Management requested to the Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, vide letter No. 6274 dated 19.12.2008 to issue instructions to the Advocate General, Haryana, for filing writ petition. The Legal Remembrancer, Haryana, issued instructions to the Advocate General, Haryana vide letter dated 14.01.2009 for filing writ petition. There is, therefore, an unexplained delay of 5 years and 4 months. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, there is an unexplained delay in approaching this Court by way of present writ petition. Further, the findings have been recorded by the Labour Court that the State, despite having been called for to produce the records, has failed to produce the same leading to the Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner, therefore, holding that the workman had continuously worked with the petitioner from 01.02.1990 to 16.08.1997. It has further been held that the Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement on her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. In the light of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere in CWP No. 7228 of 2009 5 the present writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 14, 2009 pj CWP No. 7228 of 2009 6