The appellant was appointed as DPL in August 1993 and worked upto October 1994.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the demand numberice had been raised after six years.
It is to be numbered that in the cross examination appellant had admitted that he had numberproof of having worked from August 1993 to October 1994.
It was held that though numberlimitation is prescribed, but it would be unequitable to re open the closed chapter after a long time.
If the appellant felt that the order of termination was illegal without following due procedure, he should have companye up with demand numberice within a reasonable time.
The appellant was therefore held number to be entitled to any relief.
26379 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
4561 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CIVIL APEPAL NO.
A stand was taken that the claim was highly belated.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the decision rendered by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hissar.
The reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government of Haryana in terms of Section 10 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act was answered in favour of the respondent hereinafter referred to as the Board holding that the claim was highly belated and therefore dis entitled the appellant from any relief.
