Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangeeta vs P.O. L.C. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors on 9 September, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1165 of 2014
DATE OF DECISION : 09.09.2014
Sangeeta
.... APPELLANT
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others
.... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The workman has filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order dated May 26, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 10278 of 2014) filed by her seeking modification of the award dated December 13, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, to the extent that instead of awarding her compensation of ` 65,000/-, she may be ordered to be re-instated with full back wages, has been dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1165 of 2014 -2-
In this case, the Labour Court found termination of the services of the appellant - workman being contrary to the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that her service period was one year and three months and she raised the industrial dispute after more than 5 years of the alleged termination of her services, the Labour Court awarded compensation of ` 65,000/-, in lieu of re-instatement. The learned Single Judge has upheld the said award passed by the Labour Court, while observing as under :
"After going through the Award, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the Award of the Labour Court. There is no denying the fact that the relationship of employer- employee stood extinguished 13 years back and even as per the case of the petitioner, she never joined after 01.06.1999. The demand notice was only issued on 16.09.2006, belatedly. For a short period of one year of service, compensation of `65,000/- has been awarded by the Labour Court, which in the facts and circumstances, seem to be fully justified. The Apex Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam Singh 2013 (2) SCT 30 has held that the length of service is to be taken into consideration while granting amount of compensation. The relevant observations read as under:-
"26. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1165 of 2014 -3- circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief.
27 and 28 xxx xxx xxx
29. In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1165 of 2014 -4- set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute."
Accordingly, keeping in view the facts of the present case, which go on to show that the petitioner only served for a period of one year and left on account of medical problems and when on joining, she was told to report to Panchkula, started raising an industrial dispute, which led to the termination order being passed. There seems to be no valid and justifiable reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court granting adequate amount of compensation."
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, the Labour Court has committed grave illegality while declining re-instatement and awarding compensation of ` 65,000/- to the appellant. He submits that the appellant came to know that her services were terminated, when she filed application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and immediately thereafter, she raised the industrial dispute. Therefore, there was slight delay in raising the industrial dispute. However, it has not been disputed before us that service period of the appellant was slightly more than one year and three months. It is well settled that it is not an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. In this regard, the Labour Court has the discretion to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in suitable cases, where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. It is well settled that the relief of reinstatement depends upon host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.16 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1165 of 2014 -5- service, as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam Singh 2013 (2) SCT 30, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration all these facts, has upheld the award passed by the Labour Court. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 09, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.09.16 14:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document