- (1.) The petitioner-management is aggrieved of the award dated July 12, 2005/October 10, 2005, copy Annexure P-3, made by the Labour Court, Chandigarh. The pivotal question put forth is that despite the plea of delay and laches raised against the workman for raising the non-existent industrial dispute, the reference has been answered in favour of the workman and against the management.
(2.) The factual status is that the workman-respondent No. 1 had been engaged as a casual worker on daily wage basis during the years 1979 to 1981 as per the detail given as under : (i) 63 days from March to May 1979. (ii) 79 days from March to May 1980. (iii) 75 days from September to December 1980. (iv) 217 days from February to October 1981.
(3.) The workman had been engaged on need basis, therefore, did not acquire any right against any post under the control of the management. It has been categorically averred that he had never been engated after October 1981. A demand notice was served upon the management in the year 1991 i.e. after a period of more than ten years but without any explanation and much less reasonable explanation for explaining the delay and claiming that the industrial dispute subsisted. The proceedings before the Conciliation Officer had been contested by raising objection in regard to delay and laches as also the industrial dispute referable for adjudication. However, de hors the objection, the industrial dispute was referred by the appropriate government vide order dated August 26, 1993.;