Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Karamjit Singh vs Punjab State Warehouding Corp.Ltd.. on 11 February, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2284 OF 2011
KARAMJIT SINGH ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATON LTD.& ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The challenge in this appeal is against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in Writ Petition No.10316 of 2006, dated 01.05.2009, by which the award passed by the learned Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant-workman as a Helper/Chowkidar has been interfered with.
2. A perusal of the award of the learned Labour Court would go to show that the effect of the reinstatement, in the light of the Signature Not Verified engagement of appellant as daily-wager, would Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2016.02.16 17:42:42 IST Reason: be in the same status. There was no order of 2 the learned Labour Court directing regularization or grant of permanency in service; neither there was any order of back-wages.
3. The High Court in the writ petition took the view that the appointment of the appellant-workman was contrary to the Service Rules was therefore inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Consequently, the award directing reinstatement was not legal and valid. We do not agree. The entire basis on which the proceedings before the learned Labour Court had been conducted is the entitlement of the appellant-workman to remain in the status of a daily-wage worker and the validity of the termination as a daily-wage worker without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this regard the learned Labour Court had clearly recorded the finding that the workman was employed as a daily-wager for a period of nearly nine years and therefore his 3 continuance in that capacity could not have been terminated without complying with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Insofar as the grant of relief is concerned, the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to direct reinstatement in the facts of the case.
4. We have already noticed that the High Court, while hearing the writ petition in the challenge against the award, had proceeded on what appears to be a incorrect basis. What was required to be considered is the entitlement of the workman to continue as daily-wager and no further. The issue before the High Court was not one of regularization of the workman so as to enable the High Court to take into account the Service Rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. We are also informed that pursuant to the award, the appellant-workman has been re-engaged and is presently employed in his earlier capacity.
4
6. For the all aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the order of the High Court should not be allowed to remain on record. We accordingly, set aside the same and allow this appeal.
7. After the order was dictated in Court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reinstatement of the appellant-workman was on the threat of contempt and that in the facts of the case, the alternative relief, namely, compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. As the workman is presently working, we are of the view that the alternative relief of compensation would not be just, proper and adequate and therefore the prayer made is declined.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 11, 2016
5
ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2284/2011 KARAMJIT SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORP.LTD.& ORS. Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 11/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Yadav N.S., Adv.
For Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Adv.
Mr. J.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)