- (1.) The management has filed the present petition impugning the award dated 20.9.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the management has been directed to give respondent No. 2-workman (for short, 'the workman ') benefit of the memorandum of settlement, as was granted to other employees. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner is a Corporation created under the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964. It is carrying on the business of procurement, storage and distribution of food grains in the country. The workman was working as Home Guard volunteer with Punjab Home Guards and was deputed for duty at Food Corporation of India Depot for security. He was paid salary by Home Guard Department. At the time of raising of demand notice, the workman claimed that he had worked with the management from February, 1980 till June, 1981. The demand was raised in the year 1996 with a plea that on 15.2.1989, there was a settlement made between the workmen and the management, in terms of which similarly situated workmen, who had been engaged as Home Guards volunteer, but had been working for security of the food storage depots were taken back in service and regularised. The Tribunal having accepted the claim made by the workman, the management is before this court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the management submitted that in fact, the workman was never appointed by the management. It is admitted case of the workman himself that he was a Home Guard volunteer working with Home Guard Department, Punjab and was being paid salary by it. He was merely deputed for security of food storage depots under the control of the Corporation. Once he was not appointed by the management and was not paid wages by it, there was no question of claiming that any action/in-ac-tion of the management in the case in hand was illegal, which entitled any relief to the workman. Learned counsel for the management, placing reliance upon Haryana State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala,2001 3 SCT 946; Assistant Engineer, CAD. Kota v. Dhan Kunwar, 2006 3 SCT 481; Priti Pal v. The Presiding Officer and others, 2008 1 SCT 753 and General Manager (OSD), Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills Rajnandgaon v. Bharat Lal and another, 2011 2 SCT 198, further submitted that in the present case, the dispute having been raised by the workman more than 15 years after his services were allegedly terminated, the claim was otherwise required to be dismissed on account of delay and laches, as the industrial dispute was not subsisting after 15 years, which could enable the workman to invoke the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the claim of the workman in the demand notice was not that his services had been illegally terminated, rather, he claimed that he should also be given the benefit, as has been granted to other workmen who were similarly placed in terms of the settlement dated 15.2.1989. In the aforesaid settlement, the workmen, who were similarly placed as the workman was, and were appointed as Home Guards and assigned security duty of the food storage depots, were reinstated back in service. The cause of action arose to the workman only after his case was not considered in terms of the settlement. There is no question of any delay in raising the dispute as the settlement was made in the year 1989. When action in terms thereof was not taken, the reminders were also sent in the years 1992 and 1994. Demand notice was got issued in the year 1996.;