Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pale Ram And Others vs Presiding Officer Labour Court, Rohtak ... on 21 March, 2024
CWP-10842-1998 1 2024: PHHC:041343 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10842-1998 DECIDED ON: 21.03.2024 PALE RAM AND OTHERS --EECL_ =... PETITIONERS VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND OTHERS eee RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH. Present: None for the petitioners.
Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Additional A.G. Haryana.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (QRAL)
1. As per office note, counsel for the petitioners have been informed through e-mail.
2. Petitioners -- 1) Pale Ram, 2) Ram Niwas, and 3) Dalbir, have filed present writ petition, challenging the award dated 27.11.1997, passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby reference No.75 of 1995, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, has been answered against the petitioners.
3. Initially, total 33 workmen had raised industrial dispute by challenging their termination from services and filed one reference i.e. No.75 of 1995.
4. While deciding the industrial dispute, reference was answered in favour of 28 workmen. However, qua 5 workmen i.e. 1) Pale Ram, 2) Amar Singh, 3) Ram Niwas, 4) Dalbir, and 5) Navinder, reference was declined by learned Labour Court.
5. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Additional A.G. Haryana, submits that the reason of declining of the reference qua these five workmen has been assigned in the award that they failed in proving their 240 working days in the preceding year to their termination.
athe of ts rer udgment Punjab & Haryana Hi Chandigarh CWP-10842-1998 2 2024: PHHC:041343
6. Further submits that during the proceedings before learned Labour Court, these five workmen were also offered employment, but at a different place, however, same was not accepted by the workmen as they never joined service at the offered posting place.
7. Out of the said 5 workmen, three of them have filed present writ petition before this Court and incident of termination relates back to the year 1993, i.e. more than three decades back, and this Court is uncertain whether with the efflux of time, any substantial cause survives or not, with the petitioners.
8. Moreover, in the absence of any assistance from the side of the petitioners, issue raised before this Court cannot be adjudicated.
9. Hence, this Court is left with no other option, except to dispose of the writ petition for want of prosecution.
10. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
11. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for seeking revival of the present writ petition with the preparation to argue the matter, within eight weeks from today, in case, any substantive issue still exists along with a cause of action to the petitioners.
12. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at the address of the petitioners mentioned in the writ petition.
(SANJAY VASHISTH) 21.03.2024 JUDGE Lavisha Whether speaking/reasoned _ Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No LAVISHA 2024.03.21 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh