Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Presiding Officer Ind Tri Patiala & Ors on 11 November, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Deepak Sibal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1589 of 2014 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 11.11.2014
Pawan Kumar
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and others
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present : Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The workman has filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 8474 of 2014) filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, awarding a sum of ` 1,50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, has been dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order rendered by the learned Single Judge.
In this case, it is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as Sports Coach on 19.02.1998 and he continuously worked on the said post DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.14 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1589 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2- till 05.09.2003, when his services were illegally terminated on 06.09.2003, without any notice and payment of compensation, in complete violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that services of the appellant were terminated in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act. After recording the said finding, the issue of granting relief to the appellant was considered. After taking into consideration various factors, the Labour Court awarded compensation of ` 1,50,000/- to the appellant - workman, in lieu of reinstatement. The management was directed to pay the said amount within 45 days of the publication of the award, failing which the appellant - workman was held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of passing of the award till realisation. The learned Single Judge upheld the said award, while making the following observations :
"After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court is justified on account of the fact that a finding has been recorded that the workman was initially appointed for 89 days and his services were extended from time to time and eventually, was terminated on the completion of two extensions and last extension which was given on 18.06.2003. He was never appointed against a regular post and he had been paid salary from the Students Amalgamated Funds on fixed wages. The person appointed thereafter was Harjinder Singh, Life Guard through a regular process. The Labour Court has also noticed DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.14 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1589 of 2014 ( O&M ) -3- that one Ranbir Singh, who had put in 3 years and 4 months w.e.f. 04.11.1996 had also raised an industrial dispute on his services being terminated and reinstatement had been ordered with continuity of service with 50% back wages vide award dated 04.01.2006. The said award was modified by this Court and only the back wages amounting to ` 1,79,749/- was allowed to be retained by him. The benefit of reinstatement was not granted. The Labour Court has thus, keeping in view the fact that two similarly situated employees had to be given same treatment, also passed an order granting compensation only to the tune of ` 1,50,000/- for services rendered way back in 1998 to 2003 and it is also to be noted that the petitioner was only drawing ` 2000/- per month and, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation is on the lower side."
Learned counsel for the appellant - workman, while referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and another (Civil Appeal Nos. 2417-2418/2014, decided on 17.02.2014), has argued that the appellant had rendered more than 5 years of service, therefore, in view of the policy decision dated 23.01.2001, copy of which was annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, he was entitled for regularisation, and in such cases, if termination of the services of a workman is found to be in violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act, then his re-instatement with back wages should be ordered and compensation should not be awarded.
It appears that the issue as to whether the appellant - workman was entitled for regularisation or not, was not raised before the Labour DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.14 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1589 of 2014 ( O&M ) -4- Court, as no such finding was recorded in favour of the appellant. The question as to whether on the date of termination of the services of the appellant, he was entitled for regularisation or not, is a question of fact, which could have been gone into by the Labour Court. Before the learned Single Judge, no such point was argued. It is an undisputed fact that this point was not raised either before the learned Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. However, learned counsel argued that the policy of the Punjab Government regarding regularisation was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. Clause (iii) of the said policy clearly stipulates that the workers should be regularised only against regular posts existing in each Department. In the present case, undisputedly, the appellant was not employed against a regular post. At the time of his appointment, no regular post was existing. Rather, he was engaged for 89 days and was being paid salary from the Students Amalgamated Fund. There was no sanctionied post, on which he was appointed. He worked for more than five years and received salary from the said fund. He was never paid salary from the state exchequer. Therefore, prima facie, in our view, the appellant was not entitled even for regularisation. In view of the said factual position, benefit of some observations by the Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad's case (supra) cannot be given to the appellant. In our opinion, the learned Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly ordered for payment of compensation to the appellant - workman, instead of DASS NAROTAM 2014.11.14 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1589 of 2014 ( O&M ) -5- reinstatement with back wages, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. We also do not find that the compensation awarded to the appellant is inadequate. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
November 11, 2014 ( DEEPAK SIBAL )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.11.14 16:24
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document