Baljit Singh vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 22 March, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Baljit Singh vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 22 March, 2013

Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina

CWP No.9100 of 2011
                                                                         -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                 CWP No.9100 of 2011
                                 Date of Decision: 22.03.2013


Baljit Singh
                                                    ..... Petitioner

                                 Versus

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and another

                                                    ..... Respondents


CORAM:-         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:       Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate,
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate,
               for respondent No.1.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

The short controversy involved in this labour matter arising out of an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh is whether relief of reinstatement was rightly denied and instead an award of sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement was adequate and justified. This issue is required to be examined on certain factual inputs.

The total length of service spent before termination was about two years from 23.03.1998 to 04.03.2000. The service was a product of a temporary arrangement made locally. The petitioner was required to work for three hours everyday as in-charge of EDBPM at village Thakarwal a service provided by the Postal department. The petitioner's services were CWP No.9100 of 2011 -2- dispensed with by an oral order and was followed by replacement by a regular Extra Departmental employee. The replacer Acheerpal Singh was given charge of the post of EDBPM instead. The petitioner was not employed through a valid source of recruitment nor was his name sponsored by the Local Employment Exchange.

Against the award, the respondent-Department had filed a writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge upheld the award. The intra Court appeal failed and the award qua the respondent-Postal Department attained finality through LPA No.715 of 2011 decided on 16.12.2011. The sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded to the present petitioner was found to be "wholly justified" by the Division Bench of this Court.

In Civil Appeal No.8415 of 2009 titled Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr. vs. Gitam Singh the Supreme Court has re- emphasized that when there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement is not automatic. Many factors would have to be taken into consideration. In this case the length of service was brief just as in Gitam Singh. The entry to the Postal Department was not through a valid source of recruitment; the post being a public post; the arrangement being temporary and the replacement being by a regular Extra Department recruit and the employment being part-time lasting about two years is sufficient to deny any further relief. Therefore, this Court finds no valid reason to interfere with the impugned award which has attained finality especially when the petitioner appeared and was heard by the Letters Patent Bench on 16.12.2011 when the appeal was dismissed and the award of Rs.50,000/- was found to be wholly justified and the question of quantum of CWP No.9100 of 2011 -3- compensation or reinstatement not left open. Nothing further survives.

No merit.

Dismissed. No costs.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 22.03.2013 manju

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court