MR.SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) All these writ petitions are being decided commonly by a common order.
(2.) All the Counsel agree that the issue involved in the present petitions is common and the only issue before this Court is "whether the labour Court after arriving at a finding that the retrenchment of the workman was not in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947') and there had been a violation of the provisions thereto, still the reference has been answered against the workman on the ground that workman has raised the dispute after a delay."
(3.) This issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Gopal Lal Parashar v. The Presiding Officer and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 175/2003) pronounced on 14.02.2017 wherein it was held as under:- "16. The provisions of the Act deliberately excluded the law of limitation and there is no limitation provided for raising a dispute, apparently for the reason that the workman may not be able to bring himself up to the fact that he may be able to fight with the management immediately and may be having a ray of hope that he would be reinstated as and when work would be available for him. However, it is when he finds that all the doors are closed and other persons are being employed and taken up for work, leaving him aside, that he may knock doors of justice. In such circumstances, to oust him on the ground of delay would be amounting to adding certain provisions in the Act of 1947 and legislating into which the Legislature never intended to add. 17. So far as establishment of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts is concerned, they are creature of the statute, the Act of 1947 and hence, they are governed by provisions of the Act of 1947. They can not deny relief on account of applying a provision which is in violation to the Act of 1947 once the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal reach to conclusion that the retrenchment is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. 22. In the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra), the facts were different from the present case. While in the said case the respondent's dismissal was not found to be in any way illegal or there was any irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, the facts of the present case show that the Tribunal has reached to a positive finding that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Similarly, in Indian Iron and Steel (supra), the Tribunal not only considered the delay but gave a finding that even without considering the question of delay, the respondent has lost his lien in light of the standing orders. 23. Thus, the question of relief is directly proportionate to the findings on the facts before the Tribunal. If the findings and conclusion are found to be against the workmen, the question of delay is taken as additional ground to deny the relief. However, once the Tribunal reaches to a conculsion that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Act, it has no discretion available to it to deny the relief. Of course, relief, can be moulded in terms of section 11-A of the Act if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled. 24. Taking into consideration all the aspects and also taking into consideration that the management can not take advantage of its own fault and no one can benefit of its own error, this Court findings that the order passed by the learned Tribunal denying relief to the petitioner deserves to be set aside and it is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. However, on account of delay in putting up the claim, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages but he shall be given benefit of continuity of service.";