PUNJAB KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD Vs. MANJIT KAUR
LAWS(P&H)-2000-10-103
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 18,2000

Punjab Khadi And Village Industries Board Appellant
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the order of Reference made by respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that : - i) Demand is belated one; ii) There was already a compromise and settlement between the parties and matter cannot be revived after a long period.
(2.) TAKING the second point first, regarding the compromise/settlement between the parties, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on Annexures P/3 and P/4 attached with this writ petition. Annexure P/3 is the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner dated 2.7.1987. It is as under : - "Enclosed please find copy of letter dated 30.6.1987 from the authorised representative of your workmen. Your are advised to maintain status -quo till the disposal of case." At annexure P/4, there is another order of Assistant Labour Commissioner. It is an under : - "It is in continuation of this office Memo No. 3223, dated the 2nd July, 1987, the same stands cancelled after arguments." Basing argument on these two orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a compromise between the parties and, therefore, stay was granted. However, no compromise/settlement is brought in writing and nothing can be inferred from these two orders that there was compromise between the parties.
(3.) REGARDING delay, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay is of 8 years. He had relied or the case of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and others, : AIR 2000 SC 839 : 2000(1) SCT 1088 (SC). In that case, it was held that it cannot be said that complaint made after a lapse on 7 years gave rise to industrial dispute or industrial dispute could be apprehended. The reference was held to be bad both on the ground of delay and lack of industrial dispute existing or apprehended. In that case, the workman was removed after disciplinary proceedings against him but had raised the dispute after a long time contending that/similarly situated persons were reinstated.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.