Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the different awards dated 21.0.2011, 21.3.2012 and 23.3.2012 respectively whereby industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court, Bharatpur by the appropriate government was answered against the workmen. The terms of the reference included the first question (i) whether the raising of dispute with delay of 17 years was legal and proper, (ii) whether the workmen had worked 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment on 31.8.1988 and (iii) whether the petitioner -workman was removed from service by the respondents and if yes whether such removal was legal and valid and if not what relief was workmen entitled to.
(2.) THE learned Labour Court in CW Nos. 17056/12 and 17013/12 even though in answer to question Nos. 2 and 3 has held that the workmen worked for more than 240 days, but they failed to prove the violation of provisions of Section 25G and 25H and therefore finally answered the reference in the terms that the dispute having been raised with delay of 17 years and there being no explanation for such delay, petitioner -workmen were not entitled to any relief. In CW No. 580/14, the Labour Court in addition to delay of 17 years also did not find violation of Section 25 -F, 25G and 25H of the Act proved by the workman. Shri S.K. Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is ample law on the subject that even if a reference has been belatedly raised, the relief can be moulded by denying the back wages corresponding to the period of delay, but the labour court cannot decline to grant relief in these matters. The Labour Court CW Nos. 17056/12 and 17013/12 having held that the working of the petitioners with the respondent for more than 240 days was proved, could not have refused to decline their retrenchment as illegal and should direct their reinstatement with continuity of service. He has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors. : 1999 (9) SCC 178.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;