Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Shiv Charan And Another on 5 October, 2000
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
ORDER S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court vide which respondent No. I was reinstated with 50% back wages. Respondent No. 1, of course, had not completed 240 days of service but the Labour Court held that there is a violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, therefore, ordered re-instatement of respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the pelitioner relied on the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. Stale of Bihar and others, 1997(3) RSJ 298. It is observed by the Supreme Court that when daily wage appointments are made as per the need of work, the termination from service cannot be said to bere-trechment. In that case, the Supreme Court also observed that when the appointments are regulated by statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded when they are temporary employees working on daily wages. It is also observed that every department of the Government cannot be treated as "Industry". Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, argued that when respondent No. I was employed only as per the need of work, he cannot claim protection of the provisions of the Act.
3. In the written statement filed before the Labour Court, copy of which has been produced as Annexure P/2 with the petition, it is not shown that respondent No. 1 was appointed as per the need of work. Labour Court has also observed that there is no evidence on the file to establish that the job against which respondent No. 1 was engaged was no more required. The Labour Court has also observed as under :
"It is clearly admitted in the written statement that Shri Nand Balb Helper was appointed on 1.5.1995. MW-I Smt. Shashi Sachdeva, Clerk has also stated that'Shri Nand Balb Junior to the workman is still xyorking. So at the time of termination of the services of the workman, Shri Nand Balb admittedly a junior Helper to the workman has been retained is service. The management has violated the principle of last come first go. No doubt the workman has not completed the continuous service of 240 days but in order to invoke the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that a workman should have been actually worked for a period of 240 days."
In view of the facts of the present case, the principle laid down in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others (supra) will not be applicable to it. Moreover, in the subsequent judgment, in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajinder Kumar Batola, reported in 2000 FLR(84) 896, a daily wager was ordered to be reinstated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the Labour Court has erred in granting 50% back wages. It is argued by him that the Labour Court has not given any reason for granting 50% back wages. However, the Full Bench in the case of Hari Place, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ami another reported in 1979 PLR 7.20 held that ordinarily a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. It has been further held that this is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. No circumstances necessitating departure have been shown by the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find it proper to disturb the award of 50% back wages made by the Labour Court.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and is dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.