Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Minor Irrigation & ... vs Yash Pal & Ors on 10 October, 2014
CR No.6909 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CR No.6909 of 2014.
Decided on:-10.10.2014.
Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewells Corporation, Panchkula.
.......Petitioner.
Versus
Yash Pal and another ......Respondents.
(2) CR No.6912 of 2014.
Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewells Corporation, Panchkula.
.......Petitioner.
Versus
Pala Ram and another ......Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
*****
Present:- Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
These two civil revision petitions filed by the by the Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewells Corporation, Panchkula (hereinafter mentioned as the petitioner-Corporation) are being taken up together as they are interconnected with each other.
YAG DUTT 2014.10.14 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.6909 of 2014 -2-2. For convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from CR No.6909 of 2014.
3. Respondent-workman Yash Pal was in employment since 8.9.1963. His services were terminated on 30.7.2002. Then he was drawing a salary of Rs.7,868/-. Retrenchment compensation worth Rs.1,66,109/- i.e. Retrenchment Compensation worth Rs.1,50,657/- plus two months notice pay worth Rs.15,452/- was allowed to him. Since the petitioner-Corporation had already paid Rs.1,28,212/- vide cheque on 1.7.2002, balance amount of Rs.37,897/- towards difference in payable retrenchment compensation, was awarded in favour of the workman vide order dated 12.3.2012 of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Circle 2, Panipat (hereinafter mentioned as the Authority). It was specifically mentioned therein that the said order would not affect the rights of the workman to get the payment of arrears of DCRG and arrears of leave encashment amount, if found payable to the workman.
4. This order was challenged by the petitioner-Corporation before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Panipat (hereinafter mentioned as the Appellate Authority). Finding no merit in the appeal, the same was dismissed on 15.4.2014.
5. It is worth notice that the petitioner-Corporation had placed on record cheque dated 20.9.2012 for the amount of Rs.37,897/- but since the same had elapsed by efflux of time, direction was issued to the petitioner- Corporation to make payment of the said amount within a period of one month failing which it was required to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retrenchment of the employee till realization of the amount.
6. In this revision petition, it is, interalia, claimed that the petitioner-Corporation came into existence on 1.4.1970 whereas respondent No.1 had allegedly joined on 8.9.1963. It is claimed that the Corporation is YAG DUTT 2014.10.14 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.6909 of 2014 -3- not to make payment of compensation for the period when it was not even in existence. It is claimed that due compensation has already been paid.
7. It is worth notice that this plea had all along been raised by the petitioner-Corporation but the Authority discussed the entire aspect and negatived the plea of the Corporation. Relevant findings of the Authority in this regard are as below:
"Thus, it can easily be inferred that on the formation of HSMITC from 1.4.1970 service of the applicant and other employees were absorbed in the HSMITC in continuity from their past services and their same service book was transferred to the HSMITC. It is also admitted fact that the Irrigation Department is Govt. Department and the HSMITC was Semi- Govt. Department but they both run by the same Haryana Government department and their controlling body is one. As such the services of the applicant were merely transferred from one department to another department and there was no break in two service periods. Therefore, the applicant has rendered the continue service from 8.9.63 to 30.6.2002 and in this way the applicant is entitled for the retrenchment compensation for entire service period i.e. for 39 years. I hold accordingly."
8. After discussing all aspects of the case as also the objections of the petitioner-Corporation, conclusion drawn by the Authority was as under:
"As per the evidence brought on record the amount stand payable to the applicant comes to Rs.1,66,109/- on account of Retrenchment Compensation worth Rs.1,50,657/- two months notice pay worth Rs.15,452/-. It is admitted fact on record that the applicant has already been paid Rs.1,28,212/- vide cheque dated 1.7.2002. In this way remaining balance amount payable to the applicant comes to Rs.37,897/- only (1,66,109/- minus 1,28,212/-) towards difference of retrenchment compensation and notice pay which is awarded in favour of the applicant."
9. All the objections taken before the Authority, were also taken before the Appellate Authority by the Corporation but were found to be of no merit. Even in this revision petition, nothing new has been put forth. No YAG DUTT 2014.10.14 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.6909 of 2014 -4- ground requiring interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, has been agitated.
10. In view of the well-written order of the Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority explaining the entire stand of the Corporation, no ground to interfere with the findings of the authorities below is made out.
11. Sequelly, affirming the impugned orders passed by both the authorities below, both these petitions being without any merit, are dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
October 10, 2014 Judge
'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.10.14 14:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document