Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project vs Mehnga Ram And Another on 1 April, 2014
Author: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
Bench: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
CWP No.2897 of 1994 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2897 of 1994
Date of decision: 01.04.2014
Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project ...Petitioner
Vs.
Mehnga Ram and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
*****
Present: Mr. J.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral).
1. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 28.10.1993 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby the respondent No.1- workman was held entitled to be promoted as Chargeman Misc. prior to the appointment of Sarv/Shri Rakesh Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Kundan Singh with all consequential benefits.
2. The claim of the workman was that he was working as Fitter from 6.12.1977 and prior to his retrenchment due to reduction in the strength he was working as Chargeman Misc. On re-employment as Fitter, he applied for appointment to the post of Chargeman Misc. on the ground that he had been retrenched as Chargeman Misc. but was given an assurance that whenever vacancy arises, he would be considered and preferred. After his Kumar Pardeep 2014.04.09 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2897 of 1994 -2- **** appointment, the management appointed Rakesh Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Kundan Singh as Chargeman Misc. but his case was not considered. Accordingly, he raised an industrial dispute pleading that there was violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and he be promoted as Chargeman Misc. from the date juniors to him have been appointed.
3. The Labour Court after examining the evidence led by workman himself as WW1 and the management witness Surjeet Singh Kahlon, RW1 came to the conclusion that Mehnga Ram was re-employed but since there was no post of Chargeman Misc. available at the time re-employment, his case should have been considered when such post became available. It was noticed that the above said persons have been appointed after re-employment of the Mehnga Ram without his case being considered and accordingly direction was issued for promoting him as Chargeman Misc. prior to their appointments with all consequential benefits. A factual finding has been recorded that there has been violation of provisions of Section 25-H of the Act.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any illegality which has been committed by the Labour Court and it is only submitted that there was fresh appointment and he would have no legal right to the post of Chargeman Misc.
Kumar Pardeep 2014.04.09 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2897 of 1994 -3- **** Once he had been called back after being retrenched on a particular post, he was entitled for appointment on the said post from which he had been retrenched the moment availability of such post came up. It is a matter of fact that other persons have been given the said benefits where respondent no.1-workman has wrongly been excluded due to which he rightly raised the industrial dispute on the ground of violation of Section 25-H of the Act. This Court is thus of the opinion that there is no valid ground made out to interfere with the well reasoned award of the Labour Court.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Respondent no.1-workman shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.
01.04.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
Pka JUDGE
Kumar Pardeep
2014.04.09 14:12
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh