MAHABIR ALIAS BHIRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mahabir alias Bhira in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated May 17, 2001 (Annexure P-2) and order dated June 30, 2003 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Special Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department (respondent No. 2) in pursuance of which reference of the Industrial dispute sought by the petitioner for adjudication by the Labour Court has been declined and the demand notice rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner also seeks directions to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Beldar in the office of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B & R), Provincial Division, Kaithal (respondent No. 4) as Class IV employee on daily wages basis on the salary paid at the Deputy Commissioner's rates from time to time. The petitioner joined his duties on June 1, 1989 and he worked continuously, however, in the muster roll his attendance was marked upto October 1991 and he has been shown as absent in between. This gap, it is, however, stated, is not more than a continuous month. The details of the muster roll attendance marked in respect of the petitioner has been appended as Annexure P-1. The petitioner, it is stated, worked continuously, sincerely and diligently and without any complaint. No notice or charge-sheet was ever served upon him. However, his services were terminated without any reason even though he had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year. While dispensing with his services, no retrenchment compensation was paid and the principle of last come first go was not followed. Besides the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act" for short) were not followed while dispensing with his services, which it is stated, amounts to unfair labour practice.

(3.) The petitioner submitted representations to the respondents but the respondents failed to take back the petitioner on duty. Lastly he served a demand notice on November 16, 2002 through the Labour Conciliation Officer upon respondent No.4. The conciliation between the parties could not be effected and the matter was recommended to the Labour Commissioner respondent No. 3 for making a reference for the adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court. However, the Special Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department-I (respondent No.2) vide his impugned order dated May 17, 2001 (Annexure P-2) rejected the reference on the ground that the demand notice had been served late. Aggrieved against the said rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal/representation dated July 10, 2001 to the Special Secretary, Government of Haryana, Labour Department (respondent No.2), which was rejected vide order dated March 19, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal/application dated April 10, 2003 (Annexure P-3). In this the petitioner referred to the Supreme Court decisions stating that rejection of the demand notice on the ground of delay is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, however, this was also rejected vide impugned order dated June 30, 2003 (Annexure P-4) on the ground of delay only. The petitioner has accordingly filed the present petition assailing the aforesaid rejection order dated May 17, 2001 (Annexure P-2) and June 30, 2003 (Annexure P-4).