Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhola Ram vs The Presiding Officer And Others on 30 September, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 19292 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 19292 of 2009
Date of decision: 30.09.2010
Bhola Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The petitioner was appointed as daily wager with the respondents since January, 1989. He has claimed to work under different foresters/guards in different beats, nurseries etc. in the department continuously for almost 15 years, when his services were terminated on 18.06.2004. The petitioner was not given any retrenchment compensation and was also not served notice in any form while terminating his services. The petitioner, accordingly, sought reference of the dispute. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. The labour Court has finally given its award on 08.10.2008, declining the reference. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition to impugn the said award.
The counsel for the petitioner would make reference to the factual finding returned by the labour Court, where it has been found that the petitioner/workman had completed 240 days in a calender year. The finding in this regard is that the workman had Civil Writ Petition No. 19292 of 2009 2 remained with the management from January 1989 to 18.06.2004. Reference is also made to the documents, which were not denied by the management to show the number of days and the period for which the petitioner had worked with the respondent. Even the the sole witness produced by the management had not denied the claim made by the petitioner/workman though he had stated that the petitioner had not completed 240 days in any calender year. Reference was made to the cross examination of this witness, where he admitted that he did not know if the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in the calender year. Based on this, the Court found that the petitioner/workman had rendered service of more than 240 days with the respondent. Having given this factual finding, the Court, however, went on to rely upon the various judgments to say that the petitioner had no right to seek regularization, absorption or permanent employment. Accordingly, the prayer for reinstatement was declined.
Once the finding of fact recorded is that the petitioner had completed 240 days and that he was terminated without following the provisions of the labour court in Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner was entitled to atleast compensation even if he has no right to reinstatement. Considering the fact that the petitioner had worked with the management for almost 15 years, notwithstanding the objection that the petitioner was a seasonal workman, it cannot be denied that he had remained in the employment of respondent- management for a considerable period. Seasonal worker is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the petitioner has Civil Writ Petition No. 19292 of 2009 3 been left in lurch and his services terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act atleast, the case for award of compensation is made out. In this regard, reference can be made to the various judgments passed by this court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban 2007 (2) SCT 737, Mehboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, 2008 (1) SCT 310, State of Haryana Vs. Ishwar Singh and another 2008 (3) SCT 788, Telecom District Manager and others versus Keshab Deb 2008 (4) SCT 32 and Jagbir Singh vs. HSAMB and another 2009 SCT 790 .
In Madhya Pradesh Administration's (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had interfered in the order passed by the High Court directing reinstatement with full back wages to direct payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- by invoking the doctrine of public employment and involvement of public money. It is observed that at one point of time, relief of reinstatement used to be automatically granted but keeping in view several other factors and in particular, the doctrine of public employment and involvement of public money, a change in the said trend is now found in the recent decision of the Supreme Court. It is also observed that Supreme Court, in large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the kind, distinguished between a daily wager, who does not hold a post as a permanent employee. It is further observed that it may be that the definition of workman, as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act is wide and take within its umbrage all categories of workmen specified therein but the same would not mean that even for the Civil Writ Petition No. 19292 of 2009 4 purpose of grant of relief in an industrial dispute referred for adjudication, application of constitutional scheme of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is not be taken into consideration.
In Mehboob Deepak's case (supra), it is observed that merely because an employee has completed 240 days of work in a year, preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized. It is further observed that any appointment made in violation of the Rules, as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, would be a nullity.
Even in Ishwar Singh's case (supra), this Court recognized the right to compensation for wrongful termination, even if the right to reinstatement with back wages was not made out. In Jagbir Singh's case (supra), the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages, which was set-aside by the High Court was interfered with by the Supreme Court, but without directing reinstatement and instead a compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded.
Accordingly, the award passed by the labour Court may not call for interference except that the petitioner may have a right to seek compensation. The writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lump sum, which will enough to settle the equities.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
September 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE