Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pale Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 November, 2000
Author: S Sudhalkar
Bench: S Sudhalkar


ORDER

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 9813 of 1987 and C.W.P.No. 102 of 88.

2. This writ petitions have been filed by the workmen challenging the order of the Deputy Secretary Haryana State, Labour Department (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) dated 19.8.87 vide which the request for making reference on the demand notice was rejected. The order regarding the rejection of reference on the demand notice of Pale Ram reads as under :-“On the abovementioned subject you are informed that Government do not consider your case fit to refer the same to the Labour Court for adjudication because after enquiry it is found that your services were terminated in the year 1982 and,

therefore, there is no reason for issuance of demand notice after four years.” The order of the authority regarding rejection of reference on demand notice of Ram Kishan reads as un-der:-

“On the above mentioned subject you are informed that Government do not consider your case fit to refer the same to the Labour Court for adjudication because after enquiry it is found that your services were terminated in the year 1981 and, therefore, there is no reason for issuance of demand notice after six years.” The.authority declined to refer the matter to the Labour Court because of delay. It is now well settled that delay cannot be the sole cause for rejecting reference or rejecting request of reinstatement. It depends on the facts of each case as can be seen from the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service (sic) Bank Ltd v, K.P. Madavankutty and others, AIR 2000 SC 839. It was for the Labour Court to consider the question as to whether the petitioners could be granted any relief in view of the delay. The authority has, therefore, gone beyond its jurisdiction in delvingthe matter which was within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The orders cannot, therefore, the said fo be” legal.

3. As result, these writ petitions are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the authority for fresh decision in accordance with law which shall be taken within a period of one month of the receipt of the order from this Court.

4. Petitions allowed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.203 seconds.