Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Petitioners have assailed the award dated 29.11.2011 rendered by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in reference No. 138/2006.
2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of respodnents, namely, Mohan Lal was engaged on daily wage basis on 25.10.1982 He was conferred with work charge status on 3.9.1997 He was regularized on 3.9.2000 He retired on 30.4.2002 A demand notice was raised by Sh. Mohan Lal on 8.4.2004 Failure report was furnished by the Conciliation Officer on 29.9.2004 to the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner made the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court:
“Whether the action of the Additional Superintending Engineer, HPSEB Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P not to regularize the services of Shri Mohan Lal son of Sh. Soju Ram workman after completion of 10 years of continuous service w.e.f 1989 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service w.e.f 1989 is legal and justified? If not, what relfief of service benefits the above aggrieved workman is entitled for?”
3. Learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala answered the reference No. 138/2006 and allowed the same partly. Sh. Mohan Lal was held entitled to be brought on work charge status with effect 1.1.1994 with all the consequential benefits.
4. Mr. Satyen Vaidya has vehemently argued that reference was highly belated since according to him matter has become stale. He has also argued that the policy to confer work charge status was discontinued on 17.6.1986 and revived on 29.7.1997
5. Mr. Rahul Mahajan has supported the award dated 29.11.2011
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully.
7. Mohan Lal has been conferred with work charge status on 3.9.1997 as per decision dated 29.7.1997 He was regularized on 3.9.2000 He retired on 30.4.2002 Demand notice has been made only on 8.4.2004 There is no explanation why the demand notice was delayed. Failure report was sent by the Conciliation Officer to the Labour Commissioner on 29.9.2004 Petitioners have specifically raised the plea of delay and issue to this effect was also framed. Learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has not taken into consideration the delay which has occurred in raising the industrial dispute by Sh. Mohan Lal. Workman was seeking conferment of work charge status w.e.f 1.1.1994 He should have raised the demand in the year 1997 instead of waiting for seven years. Reference has been made after the retirement of workman on 30.4.2002 The Board, as per policy decision dated 17.6.1986, has discontinued the conferment of work charge status. This policy was revived only on 29.7.1997 and Sh. Mohan Lal was conferred with work charge status on 3.9.1997 The petition is liable to be allowed on the ground that industrial dispute was raised belatedly. Moreover, respondent-workman has failed to substantiate on what basis he is entitled to be conferred with work charge status from the year 1994 instead of 1997.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Award dated 29.11.2011 rendered in Reference No. 138/2006 is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.