Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rugha Ram And Others vs Presiding Officer on 17 May, 2013
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.10687 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.10687 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION : 17.5.2013
Rugha Ram and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The petitioners worked as Junior Engineers with the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Limited before it was closed down on 30.6.2002. The petitioners before this Court, who are five in number, preferred Application No.1 of 2009 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") before the Labour Court, claimed that they were not paid retrenchment compensation as per their length of service. The asked for computation of money due together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum w.e.f. 1.7.2002 till actual payment is made. They submitted that they were 'workmen' within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act.
The corporation contested the application on the ground that the applicants performed supervisory duties in field offices and were paid salaries above Rs 1600/- per month and were not entitled to retrenchment compensation as they were not workmen by definition. They were regular employees of the corporation and their services were governed by Service Rules, 1980 and in any case at the time of closure they were paid terminal CWP No.10687 of 2013 -2- dues including notice period salary as provided under Rule 8.2.
The learned labour Court has found that Junior Engineers performed duties of inspecting sites and checking labour work executed in the field and although the applicants may not have exercised any authority to sanction leave or suspend a worker yet the principal nature of duties performed by them were supervisory in nature and they would not qualify as ''workman'' since they were drawing wages exceeding Rs.1600/- per month. Junior Engineers fall in the exclusionary sub-section (iv) of Section 2(s). Their functions were mainly of a managerial nature.
When services are governed by rules and employment is in a statutory corporation which is an authority or organ of State, the burden would remain heavily on the petitioners to prove that they fall in the definition.
I find that the learned labour Court in its impugned award has failed to notice a material fact pleaded in paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections in the written statement filed by the corporation that the certified standing orders of the corporation which applied to work charge employees of HSMITC, the administrative powers to inflict punishment upon such workers have been given to Junior Engineers vide clause 25 which declares them as punishing authority for inflicting minor punishment of warning. Junior Engineers exercised administrative control with respect to work charge employees working under their control and supervision and they cannot be treated as industrial workers. It is also not disputed that the corporation suffered closure on 30.6.2002 under Section 25-O of the Act and the joint application under Section 33 C (2) was filed in 2009 after considerable delay and laches without sufficient explanation for the delay. CWP No.10687 of 2013 -3- This is not to say that there is any limitation prescribed for a Section 33-C (2) application. However, delay and laches is not an irrelevant consideration in declining relief against an industry closed down seven years before the presentation of the application. There is no valid or cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order declining relief. The petition to stand dismissed being devoid of merit.
17.5.2013 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) rajeev JUDGE