- (1.) The petitioner-management is aggrieved of the award dated July 11, 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) 196 days in 1978. (ii) 149 days in 1979. (iii) 103 days in 1980. (iv) 256 days in 1981. (v) 171 days in 1982. (vi) 14 days in 1983.
(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 engaged after October 1983. A demand notice was served upon the management in the year 1992 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 11, 1994.;