By means of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 2.9.1998 passed in adjudication case no. 67 of 1995.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in the year 1991 claiming that she had been engaged as a clerk in the establishment of the respondent no. 2-employer from 1.5.1979 to 31.7.1979 and that her services had been dispensed with on 1.8.1979. The said dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court by a notification dated 24.1.1992 under section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Before the Labour Court, the petitioner appeared as a sole witness reiterating her case in her claim that she had been engaged by the respondent no. 2 from 1.5.1979 till 31.7.1979 on the post of clerk. On the other hand, on behalf of the employer, one Shri G.P. Tiwari appeared as a witness. According to the statement of Shri G.P. Tiwari there is no document existing on the record of the employer which might go to show that the petitioner had ever been engaged as a clerk for the period from 1.5.1979 till 31.7.1979 and for this reason the attendance register also could not be produced since it was not in existence. Further objection was that the dispute itself was raised by the petitioner after a period of more than 11 years and, therefore, the claim was itself barred by limitation and could not been entertained by the Labour Court.
The Labour Court after hearing the parties has, however, by the impugned award dated 2.9.1998 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.
I have heard Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 though the case has been taken up in the revised list.
The submission of Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the attendance register has been produced it may have been established that the petitioner has been appointed as a clerk under the respondent no. 2-employer.
However, this fact cannot be ignored that the claim was raised beyond a period of 11 years and Shri G.P. Tiwari, appearing for the employer also stated before the Labour Court that there was no record in existence which could be produced. Thus the Labour Court has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to establish that she had been appointed as a clerk from 1.5.1979 till 31.7.1979.
The Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank Vs. Neelam reported in (2005) 5 SCC 91 has held in paragraphs 13, 14 and 20 as under:
"13.In Ajaib Singh, the management did not raise any plea of delay. The Court observed that had such plea been raised, the workman would have been in a position to show the circumstances which prevented him from approaching the court at an earlier stage or even to satisfy the court that such a plea was not sustainable after the reference was made by the Government. In that case, the Labour Court granted the relief, but the same was denied to the workman only by the High Court. The Court referred to the purport and object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act only with a view to find out as to whether the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable or not. Although, the court cannot import a period of limitation when the statute does not prescribe the same, as was observed in Ajaib Singh but it does not mean that irrespective of the facts and circumstances of each case, a stale claim must be entertained by the appropriate Government while making a reference or in a case where such reference is made the workman would be entitled to the relief at the hands of the Labour Court.
14. The decision of Ajaib Singh must be held to have been rendered in the fact situation obtaining therein andno ratio of universal application can be culled out therefrom. A decision, as is well known, is an authority of what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom (Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, SCC p.58, para 42 : Scale para 42).
20. It is true that the respondent had filed a writ petition within a period of three years but indisputably the same was filed only after the other workmen obtained the same relief from the Labour Court in a reference made in that behalf by the State. Evidently in the writ petition she was not in a position to establish her legal right so as to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant herein to reinstate her in service. She was advised to withdraw the writ petition presumably because she would not have obtained any relief in the said proceeding. Even the High Court could have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay or could have otherwise refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The conduct of the respondent in approaching the Labour Coiurt after more than seven years had, therefore, been considered to be a relevant factor by the Labour Court for refusing to grant any relief to her. Such a consideration on the part of the Labour Court cannot be said to be an irrelevant one. The Labour Court in the aforementioned situation cannot be said to have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction injudiciously, arbitrarily and capriciously warranting interference at the hands of the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."
The findings recorded by the Labour Court are findings of fact and it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the award of the Labour Court and question the findings of fact recorded therein as an appellate court. The findings recorded by the Labour Court are based upon the statement of witnesses including the petitioner herself and the other documents. No illegality or any infirmity much less perversity in the impugned award dated 2.9.1998 has been pointed out to this Court which might warrant interference therein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2012 o.k.