Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fish Farmers Development Agency vs The Presiding Officer And Another on 8 February, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2000
Date of Decision:08.02.2013
Fish Farmers Development Agency ...... Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer and another ...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
***
Present: Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushant Maini, D.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
**** RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 6.1.1999 (P-
12) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, reinstating the respondent-workman with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice dated 12.4.1996 (P-5).
The findings of the labour Court on issue No.1 based on the deposition of MW-1/Shri Bhagwan Dass, Senior Assistant in the respondent-department (petitioner herein) was that the respondent-workman had served as Chowkidar from 1.9.1994 to 29.9.1995 on daily wages. At the time of termination on 29.9.1995, the workman was alleged to have paid/offered retrenchment compensation. The management witness stated that after cessation of service of the workman, no person was employed in Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2000 2 his place. The reason for retrenchment was that no extension was granted by the Head Office to continue the post and consequently the services of the workman were terminated. In short, the prior arrangement ceased to exist. The workman while in service was paid salary of Rs 980/- per month i.e. the minimum wage fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. The petitioner was an agency funded equally by the Punjab Government and Central Government to propagate Fish Farming in the State of Punjab. The workman had been employed when the office of the agency was situated near Raja Sansi Airport about 17 kms from Amritsar to safeguard the record, furniture and security of the office at the distant place. In 1991, the management shifted its distant office to the City Centre near Amritsar International Hotel where there was no need of a Chowkidar felt. He, however, continued in the shifted premises till his services were terminated on 29.9.1995. It has been specifically averred in para 9 of the writ petition that on the date of termination, the workman was sent a cheque bearing No.459560 dated 26.4.1996 in a sum of Rs 1200/- together with the retrenchment notice as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") through a registered letter. In response to para-9, the workman in the written statement filed before this Court has admitted receipt of cheque of Rs 1200/- but stated that it could not be encashed as the petitioner had closed its bank account meanwhile. Therefore, it cannot be said in this case that neither notice nor retrenchment compensation was not offered at the time of termination.
The workman, however, asserted that he had served from 16.7.1991 to 23.4.1996 which appears to have gone unrebutted. The Labour Court held that the management witness admitted that no notice or charge Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2000 3 sheet was served upon the workman and no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. This appears to be clearly contrary to record as in the statement of MW-1/Bhagwan Dass witness deposed that the workman had served from 1.9.1994 to 29.9.1994 without any break. There is no finding that the petitioner served from 1991 to 1995. The finding in respect of violation of Section 25-F of the Act is incorrect and not based on evidence. The full text of the statement of Bhagwan Dass appearing as MW-1 has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. There is no admission in the deposition that there was non compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. The witness in fact admitted on production of the original cheque Ex.W-1 that the bank memo indicated that the cheque was dishonoured as the account was closed. The management had been intimated of the dishonouring of the cheque and the workman was informed accordingly that he could collect a fresh cheque but the workman did not come forward to collect the same. In these circumstances, the finding of the labour Court to the contrary is untenable. There may be substantial compliance of Section 25-F of the Act but the same remains short of principles of strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the said section and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified accordingly and it would be justified in declining the relief of reinstatement in the present case given that there is no continued need of Chowkidar and thrusting his services on an unwilling employer may be unreasonable and work injustice. In any case, at this distance of time the reinstatement may not be justified.
The question now is as to what relief is to be granted to the workman. Since there is no clear rebuttal of services rendered by the workman from 1991 to 1995, it can be accepted that the workman had Civil Writ Petition No.1834 of 2000 4 worked for about 4 years as Chowkidar before his services were terminated. In such a situation, the rough rule laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Division No.2, Sonipat v. Ishwar Singh and another; 2008(3) SCT 788 can well be suitably applied to the case in hand and therefore, it may be just and equitable to grant Rs 20,000/- for every year of completed service as compensation in lieu of reinstatement to meet the ends of justice.
For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned award is set aside to the extent that it grants reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice. In lieu thereof, the workman is held entitled to a sum of Rs 80,000/- (4 x Rs 20,000/-). The respondent workman would be now paid an amount of Rs 80,000/- within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) JUDGE 08.02.2013 rajeev