RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 03.02.2009, whereby the Labour Court declined the relief of reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner. Briefly, pleaded facts are that the petitioner joined as a watchman on 01.08.1984 with the respondents/management on daily wage basis. The petitioner continued to serve the respondent -Department till 31.12.1986. His services were terminated on 01.01.1987 without giving any notice. He raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 27.06.1998. The dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. Vide its award dated 03.02.2009, learned Labour Court did not grant relief of reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner but awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in serving the demand notice is no ground to decline reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages to the petitioner. He referred to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 192 and Krishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, 2010 (3) SCC 637. There is no period prescribed under the Act as the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the workman has not been able to make out any ground before the learned court below after a period of 11 years to substantiate that the industrial dispute continued to subsist between the parties. In the absence thereof, reference could not have been made and that the same could not have been entertained by the learned court below. He further submitted that the workman was required to give explanation/justification for having raised the claim under the provisions of the Act, after a gap of 11 years. Being stale claim the learned court below has rightly declined relief to the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.;