Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chief Engineer vs Rajinder Kumar And Another on 19 November, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 19, 2012
Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam
and another
...Appellants
Versus
Rajinder Kumar and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam (hereinafter referred to as `the Management') for setting aside the order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No.3531 of 2000) filed by the appellants for quashing of the award dated 8.4.1999 passed by the Labour Court, reinstating the respondent-workman with 75% back wages from the date of demand notice till reinstatement, has been dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, the respondent-workman was appointed on 1.11.1987 as skilled labourer on casual basis and his services were terminated on 20.6.1989 alleged to be in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -2- (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The respondent-workman challenged his termination by filing a civil suit which was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Thereupon, the respondent-workman by issuing the demand notice, got referred the dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication.
The Labour Court after providing due opportunity to the Management as well as the workman, and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, answered the reference in favour of the workman and found that the services of the workman were illegally terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F and 25H of the Act. It has been found as a fact that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination. It has also been found as a fact that after termination of the services of the respondent- workman, the Management then employed certain other persons in the same capacity, without giving any notice to the respondent-workman for re- employment. After coming to the said conclusion, the Labour Court held the termination of the respondent-workman illegal and ordered for his reinstatement with 75% back wages.
Before the learned Single Judge, the award of the Labour Court was questioned by the Management, firstly, on the ground that the award of the Labour Court was hit by the principle of res judicata as the Civil Suit filed by the workman was dismissed. Secondly, the respondent-workman being a casual employee was not entitled to any notice or retrenchment compensation before his termination. Thirdly, in view of the fact that the workman was employed for a particular purpose, and when the work for which he was employed had been completed long back, his reinstatement LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -3- was not justified. In the last, it was argued that in view of the fact that the respondent-workman was employed as casual worker, therefore, he should have been awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. All these contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge by giving detailed reasons.
In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants made submissions only on the last point raised before the learned Single Judge. It has been argued that in view of the facts that the respondent-workman was employed as casual worker, and that too, for a specific purpose, the Labour Court was not justified in reinstating the respondent-workman with 75% back wages. Rather, in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of reinstatement, the respondent-workman should have been awarded some reasonable compensation. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the said contention in view of the decision in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. A. Sankaralingam, (2008) 10 SCC 698, wherein it was held that even a daily wage employee, whose services were illegally terminated in gross violation of the provisions of the Act, the reinstatement cannot be denied.
Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court. This Court in L.P.A. No.1678 of 2011 (The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula and another Versus Ram Karan and another) and other connected appeals, decided on September 04, 2012, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010(3) SLR 663; Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584; Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -4- (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010(1) SCT 675, has held that if the termination of services of the daily wager is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, he can be ordered to be reinstated with back wages, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be accepted as a Rule that such employee has to be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Incharge Officer and Anr. Vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 where a different view has been taken. A perusal of the judgment shows that in the said case the question considered was whether an order of reinstatement automatically follows in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In that light, it was held that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and the reinstatement can be denied in appropriate cases, and the Labour Court instead of reinstatement can award compensation in the interest of justice. In the said decision, the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh's case (supra), Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) and Anoop Sharma's case (supra) were not referred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for consideration. In that case the workman was engaged as daily wager in the year 1978 and his services were terminated in the year 1985, and the order of reinstatement was passed by the High Court in the year 2001, i.e., after 16 years. In those circumstances, it was held that the reinstatement of the workman was not justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In the present case, the position is different. In this case, the respondent-workman was appointed LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) -5- on 1.11.1987 as skilled labourer on casual basis and his services were terminated on 20.6.1989 in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. This Court has already taken the view by following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma's case (supra), Devinder Singh's case (supra) Harjinder Singh's case (supra) and Ramesh Kumar's case (supra) that if the services of the daily wager are found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, he can be ordered to be reinstated with back wages, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to interfere in the award passed by the Labour Court which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge.
Dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
November 19, 2012 ( INDERJIT SINGH )
vkg JUDGE