Heard on admission.
Rising from deep slumber the functionaries of the Forest Department Government of M.P have filed this petition challenging the Award dated 14.6.1999 (notified on 30.7.1999, i.e, nearly after seven years of passing of Award.
No explanation is given for the delay, except that the negligent officer is being dealt with. However, what action is taken is not disclosed till date.
The dispute was raised by respondent workman who was engaged on 1.7.1983 and services dispensed with in October 1992 abruptly and without any reason.
Conciliation to resolve the dispute ended in failure, causing the appropriate Government to refer the dispute before labour Court for adjudication.
The reference was:
Statement and counter statement was filed. The State Government through its functionaries raise preliminary objection as to applicability of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 to the Forest Depeartment. The objection were right ruled out on the principle of laws laid down by the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jaganath Maruti Kondhare: (1996) 2 SCC 293.
Further returning a finding on the basis of evidence on record that the workman had uninterruptedly worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination and the finding that the provisions contained under Rule 25 F of 1947 Act has not been followed the Labour Court set aside the termination and directed for reinstatement without backwages.
Though it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court misconstrued the facts while arriving at a conclusion that the workman had worked, since 1983. But in the teeth of the facts on record and in absence of cogent material to establish that the workman was not engaged for more than 240 days there is no merit in the challenge as would warrant an interference.
Besides the petition is also barred by laches.
A Division Bench of this Court in Focus Energy Ltd. v. Government of India, (DB) I.L.R (2011) M.P 53; while relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court has held that laches can be a good ground for denying equitable remedy. It was observed-
“10-Thus, facts stated supra leads to irresistible conclusion that appellant is guilty of delay and laches. Its conduct disentitles it to any relief. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1365 the Supreme Court has held that delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. In Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48 the Supreme Court has observed that discretionary relief can be provided to one who has not by his act or conduct given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. In the State of Haryana v. Aravali Khanij Udyog, (2008) 1 SCC 663 it has been held that where third party rights are created, the High Court should not interfere. Similarly, in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) it has been held that the Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallizes in the interregnum.”
In view of principal of law down in Focus Energy Ltd. (supra) and the given facts of the present case the finding arrived at by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with.
Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed.