Sureshwar Thakur, J.@mdashThe instant writ petition is directed against the impugned award rendered by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla. In the impugned award the learned Court below had answered the hereinafter extracted reference to it by the appropriate Government in favour of the workman.
"Whether the removal from daily wage of Shri Chattar Singh S/o. Shri Gurdia Ram w.e.f. 12.3.1997 by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB Division Rajgarh District Sirmour, H.P. vide his order dated 14.3.1997 is legal and justified? If not, to what seniority, service benefits and relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. Consequently, the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court had ordered the re-engagement in service of the respondent No. 1 herein by the petitioners. The significant fact which weighed with the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to answer the reference in favour of the workman was the fact constituted by a depiction in the mandays chart of the workman having rendered service under the petitioners for the mandatorily envisaged period of time/number of days inasmuch as his having rendered 240 days of continuous service under the petitioners herein in the year preceding his retrenchment. As a corollary, hence enjoining upon the petitioners herein to comply with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Uncontrovertedly the provisions of Section 25(F) having remained un-complied with prodded the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to proceed to order for the reengagement in service of the respondent No. 1 herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein has fairly submitted before this Court that the conclusions and findings arrived at by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court qua the factum of the applicability of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the facts at hand are not infirm and obviously then he has omitted to concert to contest the legality and tenability of the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court on the score aforesaid. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners herein has vigorously canvassed before this Court that the respondent herein had come to be dis-engaged from service at the instance of the petitioners herein in the year 1995. However, an industrial dispute challenging his purportedly illegal disengagement from service came to be belatedly raised in the year 2002. He hence submits that the reference was stale, hence vitiated. However, he has omitted to canvass before this Court that the impugned award suffers from an infirmity constituted by the fact of the belated raising of the industrial dispute at the instance of the workman and its casting a shadow on the tenability of the relief of reengagement in service afforded by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. His argument on delay in the raising of the industrial dispute at the instance of the respondent No. 1 herein is to the extent of fettering the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to hence proceed to accord the benefit of seniority in favour of workman-respondent herein and that too with retrospective effect. The legal fetter which necessarily ought to have restrained the labour Court to accord the benefit of seniority to workman is canvassed to be enunciated in a Judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013 titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State v. Mohan Lal. Relevant paragraphs 20 and 21 are extracted hereinafter:--
"20. We are clearly of the view that though Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the I.D. Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set-aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.
21. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a work charged employee for a period from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.02.1986. The workman raised the industrial dispute in 1992, i.e. after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised by the labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in restoring the award of the labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman. Though, the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the appropriate relief."
3. Given the portrayal in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein and its explicitly pronouncing the fact that while granting the relief of back wages and other reliefs to a ''workman'' the factum of belated raising of an industrial dispute ought to be borne in mind by the labour Court. Admittedly, the industrial dispute at the instance of the respondent workman was belatedly raised inasmuch as it was raised after seven years after the workmen-respondent came to be disengaged from service by the petitioners herein. Consequently, when an immense and inordinate delay took place at the instance of the workman herein in the raising of an industrial dispute, the said delay as spelt out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, ought to have been borne in mind by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, while coming to allow the relief of seniority. It having been omitted to be borne in mind by it, renders the aforesaid portion of the relief afforded to the workman by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to be tainted with an illegality. Hence, the impugned award is infirm to the extent aforesaid and concomitantly stands partly quashed and set-aside. However, this Court does not find any infirmity with that portion of the award wherein the relief of re-engagement in service of the workman, by the petitioners, has been accorded. Accordingly, the aforesaid portion of the award is maintained and affirmed.
4. With these observations the instant petition is partly allowed and is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
