Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal by special leave.
The Labour Court, therefore, adjudicated the reference against the respondent.
Management, being aggrieved, filed writ petition before the High Court companytending, inter alia, that since the Labour Court had entertained the application for review restoration of the dispute after 30 days of publication of the earlier award in the Official Gazette, it had become functus officio and had numberjurisdiction to review restore its own award.
The Labour Court, in its award passed on 29th August 1998, came to the companyclusion that the respondent having approached the Labour Court after a lapse of five six years, the right of the workman stood dissolved and held that his case had become stale and he was number entitled to any relief.
3 Disputes Act, 1947 accrued to him and companyld number be denied to him.
Thus, the subsequent order passed by the Labour Court is beyond the A.No.1180/08 companytd.
However, relying on the attendance register produced by the workman, it was held that the workman would be deemed to have worked for more than 240 days and the benefits rights provided under Section 6N of the P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is equivalent to Section 25F of the Industrial A.No.1180/08 companytd.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by the impugned order dated 04th August 2005, dismissed the writ petition and agreed with the findings recorded by the Labour Court vide its award dated 31st May 2001.
The Labour Court, by the said award, reversed its earlier findings and relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sarhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society 1999 6 SCC 82 decided on 8.4.1999 held that only because of delay numberdispute can be dismissed.
His services are alleged to have been terminated on 31st March 1992.
in the year 1998, respondent filed an application for companyciliation before Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer which was registered as Adjudication Dispute No.119 of 1998.
The respondent workman for short the respondent was employed by the appellants on 01st January 1990 on daily wages as Cook helper in Upper Ganga Canal, Modernization Division 6, Roorkee.
Vide award dated 31th May 2001, the same Presiding Officer of the Labour Court reviewed its earlier award which had been published in the Official Gazette.
For companying to this companyclusion, the Labour Court relied on a judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Labour Court, Bhatinda decided on 25.5.1995.
The said award is stated to have been published in the Official Gazette.
After a gap of about two years, the respondent filed an application for review restoration of the dispute.
So far as the working for more than 240 days was companycerned, on the basis of the same muster rolls which were relied upon while passing the earlier award, it was held that the obstruction had been caused so that the companytinuity in service of the workman was disrupted.
After a gap of nearly six years, viz.,
2 rolls produced by the appellants, the Labour Court also held that the workman had number worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and, therefore, numberindustrial dispute existed.
It was also companytended that the respondent had number worked companytinuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court was illegal and against the evidence on record.
On the basis of muster A.No.1180/08 companytd.
