- (1.) This petition has been moved by HMT Limited, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification dated 26.8.1988 Annexure P.8 and notice Annexure P.9 referring the industrial dispute to the Labour Court, Ambala, (respondent No. 3) and to restrain Nasib Singh, respondent since deceased (respondent No. 2) and respondent No. 3 to proceed with the said reference and to stay the operation of Annexure P.8 as well as Annexure P.9.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Nasib Singh since deceased, respondent-workman was a turner, who joined the service of the petitioner- Company on 26.11.1962 in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 8.11.1962. On 21.2.1968, the workman was charge-sheeted. On 20.2.1968 at about 1:30 P.M., he collected almost all the workmen of the Turret Section in the cabin of the Foreman to discuss the promotion cases of three workmen and started arguing with the former who told him to go back to his workplace but he refused to do so. That this amounts to wilful insubordination of the lawful and reasonable orders of the superior, which is a misconduct under Standing Order No. 21.101. During the course of his (workman) arguments with the Foreman, he misbehaved and used abusive language towards the latter, which amounts to misconduct under Standing Order No. 21.109. When the inquiry into these charges was still going on, another charge-sheet dated 27.5.1969 was served upon him. He was further charge-sheeted in terms of petitioner's letter of charge No. PLO/7.32 dated 21.2.1968 as well as letter No. PLO/700/1212 dated 27.6.1968. On 27.5.1969, he was asked to give an explanation with respect to the charge- sheet. An Inquiry Committee was constituted. After holding full fledged inquiry, the Inquiry Committee gave its report, copy of which is Annexure P.1. On 9.6.1971, the Deputy General Manager, the competent authority dismissed the workman from service. After his dismissal, the workman issued the demand notice, which was sent to the Conciliation Officer, who started conciliation proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act') but later on, the workman absented himself and withdrew from the proceedings. He filed a suit on 8.10.1971 for declaration that the order dated 9.6.1971 as well as the inquiry proceedings were illegal. The suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge First Class, Ambala on 24.10.1975. The appeal preferred there against was accepted on 3.3.1977 by the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge (exercising the enhanced appellate powers) at Ambala and set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court. A Regular Second Appeal No. 1121 of 1977 was filed. The same was dismissed on 20.2.1986 by holding that the workman having at an earlier stage chosen his remedy under the industrial law could not institute the present suit and thus upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court.
(3.) A fresh demand notice dated 9.9.1987 was sent by the workman to the Labour Commissioner, Haryana. The conciliation proceedings thereafter ensued before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. The petitioner- Company represented that a dispute which has arisen in the year 1971 could not be subject matter of any reference or settlement at the present stage being a belated attempt on the part of the workman to agitate this matter, which had long been settled. That stale claim like the one before the said authority could not be agitated by the workman. Despite that the State Government made reference "as to whether the termination of the service of Shri Nasib Singh was justified and in order, if so, to what relief is he entitled." This reference is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without justification, inter-alia on the ground that the State Government has not applied its mind to the submission made before it with regard to the belated nature of the claim of the workman. Such a claim, under no circumstance could be referred for adjudication after a period of 17 years to the Labour Court. It is highly improper that the workman could raise the dispute in the year 1988 against an order of dismissal passed in 1971, when it is not possible for the Management to produce evidence, which was adduced during the course of the inquiry to sustain the order of dismissal. The reference of dispute Annexure P.8 shows non-application of mind on the part of State Government. Lastly, it has been prayed that Annexure P.8 as well as Annexure P.9 be quashed.;