Debangsu Basak,J. - (1.) The employer has assailed an award dated September 25, 2019 passed by the Labour Court.
(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the reference made under was stale when the reference was made. She has submitted that, there were a number of workmen covered by such reference. All the claims of all the workmen were stale. As and by way of an example, she has taken the incidence of one of the workman involved in the reference. She has submitted that, such workman was a initially appointed in 1996 and was subsequently regularised in 1999. For the period from 1996 being the initial appointment till the regularisation in 1999, such workman was engaged on contract basis. The workman had accepted such contract. The workman did not challenge the same at any point of time. This position is more or less prevalent for all the workmen involved in the reference. Thereafter, the impugned reference was made in 2014. She has submitted that, there was no explanation for the delay in making such reference. The issue as to whether, the reference suffers from unexplained delay has not been decided by the Labour Court. According to her, an employer cannot be fastened with financial burden after about 17 year from the date of the appointment. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon (Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and another, 2015 15 SCC 1), (Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, 2000 2 SCC 455), (State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar, 2009 13 SCC 746), (Asstt. Engineer, CAD Kota v. Dhan Kunwar,2006 6 SCC 481) and (U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Babu Ram, 2006 5 SCC 433 ).
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the employer has drawn the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the witness of the workmen. She has submitted that, in the cross-examination, the workmen has admitted that the workmen was engaged on contractual basis. Therefore, according to her, the impugned award suffers from perversity as the impugned award did not take into consideration the fact that, the engagement of the workmen was on a consolidated rate and therefore the workmen cannot claim anything beyond contractual amount.;