Naresh Kuamr v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Ambala and Others

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner (Naresh Kumar) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of impugned Award dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala (here-in-after referred to as `the Labour Court'); whereby the reference of industrial dispute raised by the petitioner regarding termination of his services has been answered against him.

A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for directing respondents No.2 to 4 (here-in-after referred to as `the respondents-Management') to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service along with other consequential benefits.

2.

Briefly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute regarding termination of his services. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court below.

3.

In the claim statement filed by the petitioner, he stated that he

was appointed as a Timber Watcher in the year 1998 by the respondent-Management on daily wage basis and he worked at different places upto January, 2006. Petitioner claimed that during his tenure, his work and conduct remained good and satisfactory. Petitioner stated that earlier he filed a writ petition i.e. CWP-12653-2005 before this Court, seeking regularization of his services in accordance with the Haryana Government Policy dated 01.10.2003 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2005 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that thereafter, the respondents-Management terminated his services in January, 2006 and that he was working under the contractor of the respondents-Management. Petitioner claimed that he had worked continuously and had completed 240 days in a calendar year and as per the Government policy dated 01.10.2003, he was entitled for regularization in service as he had completed three years of service upto 30.09.2003. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

4.

The afore-said claim of the petitioner was contested by the respondents-Management by submitting that the petitioner was never engaged as a daily wage worker in the year, 1998 and no appointment letter was issued to him by the respondents-Management. It was further stated that as per the decision of this Court in CWP-12653-2005, the representation of the petitioner was decided. It was categorically stated by the respondents-Management that the petitioner-workman never completed 240 days during his service and as per the report of the Range Forest Officer, Production Range, Pehowa, the petitioner had worked only for 11 days during the period from 03.01.2003 upto 11.02.2003; therefore, the petitioner was not

entitled to regularization of his services. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court below framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the termination of services of the workman is liable to be set-aside being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and all the benefits including the continuity of service? OPW

¶2Whether the workman has no locus-standi to file the present claim statement? OPM

¶3Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? OPM

¶4Whether the petitioner-workman is stopped from filing the claim statement by his own act and conduct? If so its effect ? OPM

¶5Whether the workman has no cause of action to file the present claim statement? OPM

¶6Relief."

6.

The parties led their respective evidence in support of their claim. The learned Labour Court below, vide impugned Award dated

04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1), rejected the claim of the petitioner.

7.

In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court below has erred in law and fact in rejecting the claim of the petitioner despite the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days in the twelve months preceding the date of his termination. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court below has failed to consider and appreciate the material/evidence available on record. It is further submitted that despite the petitioner-workman having been served with the respondents-Management from 1998-2006, he was not appointed against the sanctioned or regular post. With the afore-said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned Award dated

04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Labour Court below and to grant the necessary relief to the petitioner.

¶9Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the instant writ petition is time barred and suffers from gross delay and laches as the award impugned in the writ petition is dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereas the instant writ petition has been filed in November, 2017 i.e. after almost nine years. It is submitted that even otherwise, the learned Labour Court below has considered the relevant material available on record and passed a well reasoned and justified award, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the instant writ petition has been made.

¶10I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

¶11Concededly, the impugned award was passed by the learned Labour Court on 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereas the instant writ petition has been filed in November, 2017 which is after a period of almost nine years from the date of passing of the impugned award.

¶12Ino theo caseo ofo "Er.o Darshano Singho Bhullaro Vs.o Punjabo Stateo ElectricityoBoard"oreportedoaso2011( !oS."#.o2$%;oaoDivisionoBenchoofothiso CourtoheldothatotheolimitationoasoapplicableoinoaoCiviloSuitowouldobeoapplicableo tootheowritopetitionoalso.oInotheocaseoofo"Er.oDarshanoSinghoBhullaro(supra),oito wasoheldoasounder:-o "oo -oxo-oo o -oxo-o o o-x-o

2.o...TheoappellantohasoworkedoasoTraineeoEngineeroinotheo shippingoCorporationoofoIndiaofromo1982otoo1985oandotheno appliedo foro directo appointmento ono theo posto ofo Traineeo EngineeroinotheoPunjaboStateoElectricityoBoard-orespondent.o Heo waso selectedo ando appointedo byo theo Boardo aso Traineeo Engineer.oInothatoregardoappointmentoletterodatedo27.2.1986o (P.4)owouldobeorelevant.oFromotheopostoofoTraineeoEngineero heowasopromotedoasoAssistantoEngineeroandothenofurtherotoo theopostoofoExecutiveoEngineer.oTheoclaimoofotheoappellanto thatoperiodoofoserviceofromo1982otoo1985ospentoasoTraineeo Engineero ino theo Shippingo Corporationo ofo Indiao shouldo beo countedoforotheopurposesoofoqualifyingoserviceoforopromotiono hasonotobeenoacceptedoonotheogroundothatosuchoclaimowasonoto madeoatotheotimeoofoappointmentoino1985-86.oEvenowhenotheo appellantowasopromotedoasoAssistantoEngineerooroExecutiveo Engineeronoosuchoclaimowasomade.oMerelyobecauseooneoGiano Singhowasogivenotheobenefitoofoserviceorenderedobyohimoinotheo PWDo(B&R),oHaryanaoinopursuanceoofoRegulationo9(4)oofo PunjaboStateoElectricityoBoardoServiceoofoEngineerso(Civil)o Regulations,o 1965o wouldo noto ipsoo factoo meano thato theo appellantowouldoalsoobeoentitledotoosimilarobenefits.oIfoanyo suchobenefitowasoavailableotootheoappellantothenotheocauseoofo actionohadoarisenoino1986ooroatoanyotimeosubsequentlyowheno heo waso promotedo aso Assistanto Engineer.o Theo appellanto shouldohaveoapproachedotheoCourtowithinoaoreasonableotimeo notoexceedingothreeoyearsofromotheodateocauseoofoactionohado arisen.oInowritoproceedings,otheoperiodoofolimitationoofothreeo yearso haso beeno reado byo ao judgemento ofo theo Constitutiono BenchoofoHon'bleotheoSupremeoCourtorenderedoinotheocaseoofo Stateo ofo Madhyao Pradesho v.o Bhaio Lalo Bhaio AIRo 1964o Supremeo Courto 1006.o Theo basico reasono iso thato ino writo proceedingsotheoperiodoofolimitationocannotobeomoreothanotheo GURPREET KAUR periodoprescribedoforofilingoaocivilosuit.oAccordingly,oweoareo ofotheoviewothatotheoappealodoesonotomeritoadmissionoandoiso thusoliableotoobeodismissed."o

13.o o Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto ino theo caseo ofo "Chennaio Metropolitano WateroSupplyoandoSewerageoBoardoandoothersoVs.oT.T.oMuralioBabu",o2014o A.I.R.o(S.C.W.)o1142ohasoobservedoasounder:-o "o-oxo-oo o -oxo-o o o-oxo–o

16.o Thus,o theodoctrineo ofodelayoando latcheso shouldonotobeo lightlyobrushedoaside.oAowritocourtoisorequiredotooweighotheo explanationoofferedoandotheoacceptabilityoofotheosame.oTheo courto shouldo bearo ino mindo thato ito iso exercisingo ano extraordinaryoandoequitableojurisdiction.oAsoaoconstitutionalo courtoitohasoaodutyotooprotectotheorightsoofotheocitizensobuto simultaneouslyo ito iso too keepo itselfo aliveo too theo primaryo principleothatowhenoanoaggrievedoperson,owithoutoadequateo reason,oapproachesotheocourtoatohisoownoleisureooropleasure,o theo Courto wouldo beo undero legalo obligationo too scrutiniseo whetherotheolisoatoaobelatedostageoshouldobeoentertainedooro not.oBeoitonoted,odelayocomesoinotheowayoofoequity.oInocertaino circumstancesodelayoandolachesomayonotobeofatalobutoinomosto circumstancesoinordinateodelayowouldoonlyoinviteodisasteroforo theo litiganto whoo knockso ato theo doorso ofo theo Court.o Delayo reflectso inactivityo ando inactiono ono theo parto ofo ao litiganto ao litiganto whoo haso forgotteno theo basico norms,o namely,o "procrastinationoisotheogreatestothiefoofotime"o-oandosecond,o lawodoesonotopermitooneotoosleepoandoriseolikeoaophoenix.o Delayodoesobringoinohazardoandocausesoinjuryotootheolis.oIno theocaseoatohand,othoughothereohasobeenofouroyearsodelayoino approachingo theo court,o yeto theo writo courto choseo noto too addresso theo same.o Ito iso theo dutyo ofo theo courto too scrutiniseo whetherosuchoenormousodelayoisotoobeoignoredowithoutoanyo justification.o Thato apart,o ino theopresento case,o suchobelatedo approacho gainso moreo significanceo aso theo respondento employeeobeingoabsolutelyocarelessotoohisodutyoandonurturingo aolackadaisicaloattitudeotootheoresponsibilityohadoremainedo GURPREET KAUR unauthorisedlyo absento ono theo pretexto ofo someo kindo ofo illo health.o 3eo repeato ato theo osto ofo repetitiono thato remainingo inno uousl%oo#li,iousotoosu hodela%odoesonotofosterotheo auseo ofo "usti e.o<no theo ontrar%7o ito #ringso ino in"usti e7o foroito iso likel%otooaffe toothers.o$u hodela%oma%oha,eoimpa toonootherso ripenedo rightso ando ma%o unne essaril%o drago otherso intoo litigationowhi hoinoa epta#leorealmoofopro#a#ilit%7oma%oha,eo #eenotreatedotooha,eoattainedofinalit%.o.o ourtoisonotoe/pe tedo too gi,eo indulgen eo too su ho indolento personso whoo ompeteo witho=um#hakarnaooroforothatomattero6ipo>ano3inkle.oInoouro onsideredo opinion7o su ho dela%o doeso noto deser,eo an%o indulgen eo ando ono theo saido groundo aloneo theo writo ourto shouldo ha,eo throwno theo petitiono o,er#oardo ato theo ,er%o threshold. 'o/o'o o o'o/o'o o o'/'o#

¶14A perusal of the entire writ petition would indicate that no plausible reasoning is forthcoming as regards the reason for delay in challenging the aforesaid impugned award dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) i.e. after nine years. In the absence of any sufficient cause for delay in filing in writ petition and also considering the aforesaid position of law that the limitation to file a writ petition is the same as applicable in the case of filing of a Civil Suit, i.e. three years, the instant petition suffers from gross delay and laches.

¶15In view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure P-1), having been filed in November, 2017 suffers from gross delay and laches and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶16All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

October 31, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30040-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2023 NARESH KUMAR …Petitioner Versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.