- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P -8) whereby, the reference has been declined by the Labour Court, Chandigarh primarily on the ground that there was unexplained and inordinate delay in raising the claim and also that the inquiry report and inquiry file could not be produced due to the passage of 16 years and an adverse inference, under such circumstances, could not be drawn against the management due to the non -production of the inquiry file. Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner -workman, who was serving the management as a driver, was appointed on 05.10.1979 and his services were terminated on 24.07.1986. The claim of the workman was that he was charge sheeted but the inquiry officer did not supply the list of witnesses and never explained the procedure and the witnesses were not examined in his presence and copies of statements were not supplied to him. The workman was never medically examined by the Authority and the inquiry so conducted was not fair and proper. He had been suffering from Bronchil Asthama for the last 14 years and had been advised to take rest and had filed the demand notice and the delay was not intentional.
(2.) THE plea taken by the management was that a dispute had been raised after 18 years of termination of services of the workman. The workman on 05.03.1986, in a drunken condition, had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner causing financial loss to the management. On being charge sheeted, his reply was found unsatisfactory and the Inquiry Officer had submitted report dated 08.07.1986 against him and he was given personal hearing and the order of termination was passed on 24.07.1986.
(3.) THE following issues were framed by the Labour Court: - "(1) Whether the services of the workman was illegally terminated by the management if so, to what effect and to what relief the workman is entitled to, if any? OPW (2) What is the effect of filing of the present reference after eighteen years of his termination of services, as alleged? OPM (3) Relief." After taking into account the evidence of the parties, the Labour Court came to the opinion that reply had been filed, which was considered by the Inquiry Officer and on that basis, he had been held guilty for causing an accident with a truck under the influence of liquor due to which, damage had been caused to the bus. The workman had admitted that the bus was damaged and his plea that the fault was that of the Truck Driver was rejected as no appeal was filed against the order dated 24.07.1986. Merely because the inquiry file could not be produced after 16 years, no adverse inference was drawn against the management and accordingly, issue no. 1 was decided against the workman. The finding on issue no. 2 was that though reference cannot be declined merely on the ground of delay, but the workman could not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The ground of illness taken to explain the delay pertained to the year 2002 and there was nothing to show that there was any illness at the time of termination. Accordingly, placing reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar vs. Presiding Of icer and another,2007 1 RSJ 224, it was held that the dispute was stale and had lapsed by efflux of time.;