Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvir Singh vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 10 November, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.5080 of 2012
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5080 of 2012
Date of Decision: 10.11.2014
Sukhvir Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-Labour Court,
Patiala and others ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Amicus Curiae.
Mrs. Monika Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
No one appears for the petitioner.
Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate is requested to assist as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Indisputably, the workman has put in not more than a year in service as a daily wager in the Irrigation Department. The period is June 30, 1993 to June 06, 1994. When his stint was brought to an end the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication on the validity of his termination and as to what relief he might have. The award has been answered against the workman. He has been denied reinstatement and has been granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement a lump sum payment of Rs.30,000/-.
MANJU2014.11.12 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5080 of 2012 -2-
Mrs. Sharma, appearing for the department points out that the demand notice was raised on March 16, 2002 for the first time by the petitioner i.e. after a lapse of 8 years from the date of termination. It may be recorded that the petitioner's services were retrenched on June 07, 1994.
Though the Labour Court would have been justified in declining the reference and relief in toto in view of the delay in raising dispute in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and others; (2000) 2 SCC 455 but it factored in the delay rather well to make an award of compensation alone apparently to do substantial justice while denying reinstatement especially when it was dealing with a department of the Government where such delays may be fatal to claims for reinstatement to service. This Court in judicial review of the award could well upset it on this score but refrain from venturing that far since there is no challenge laid to the award by the respondent. In the face of long unexplained delay in raising the dispute, the Labour Court has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But since the Labour Court has gone that far then this Court in order to do further substantial justice finds it just to increase the compensation by another Rs.20,000/- going by the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr. vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 while declining reinstatement where an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted in lieu of reinstatement for 8 months of service rendered on daily wages by the workman. The Court reiterated the principle that reinstatement to service does not follow automatically in cases of violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in bringing MANJU 2014.11.12 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.5080 of 2012 -3- employment to an end by way of retrenchment.
In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The compensation is increased from Rs.30,000 to Rs.50,000/-. The award stands modified accordingly but it is upheld in declining reinstatement.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 10.11.2014 JUDGE manju MANJU 2014.11.12 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh