Shri Surender Kumar (Workman) vs The Presiding Officer (Lc ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1054 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                    Writ Petition (Civil) No.7843/2009

                                     Date of Decision : 30.03.2009

Shri Surender Kumar (Workman)                    ......Petitioner
                        Through:           Mr. Sanjay Goel,Advocate

                                 Versus

The Presiding Officer (LC No.XVIII)               ...... Respondent
                           Through:        Nemo

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
      allowed to see the judgment?                           NO
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported
      in the Digest ?                                        NO

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 28.11.2008

passed by the learned Labour Court-XVIII in ID No.86/2008 in case

titled as The Workman Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs. The Management M/s

Ashok Hotel.

2. By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has

held that the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner regarding his

dismissal/discharge is barred by time inasmuch as according to

Section 10(4) (A) the Industrial Disputes Act regarding dismissal or

discharge by a workman can be raised within a period of 12 months

from the date of communication of the order of discharge/dismissal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

notice of termination of his service dated 15.6.2007 was received by

him by post on 15.7.2007 and thereupon the petitioner raised an

industrial dispute and filed his statement of claim before the Labour

Court on 8th July, 2008 which happens to be well within a period of 12

months from the date of his alleged communication of termination

order.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

the record. The learned Labour Court has come to a finding of fact

that the dismissal/termination of services of the workman has taken

place on 15th June, 2007. The termination order dated 15.6.2007 was

sent to the petitioner by post, which was received undelivered with the

report that the petitioner despite repeated attempts of the postal

authorities was refusing to receive the same. As it was stated in the

termination order dated 15.6.2007 that services of the petitioner have

been terminated with immediate effect, therefore, the learned Labour

Court has reckoned the period of limitation of one year w.e.f.

15.6.2007 itself. On the said touchstone, the petition which is

purported to have been filed by the petitioner on 8th July, 2008 has

been held to be barred by limitation.

5. I do not find any infirmity and perversity in the order which has

been passed by the Labour Court, accordingly, the same does not

warrant an interference.

The writ petition is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

March 30, 2009 RN