Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 19 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1998)IIILLJ161P&H, (1994)108PLR396
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This writ petition was admitted to Division Bench as the correctness of law laid down in Siri Ram v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation 1991 2 Pun LR 84, was in doubt wherein it was held that termination of a workman employed with Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PRTC) remaining absent from duty would not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would not be attracted. The learned single Judge in Siri Ram's case (supra) relied upon an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through Shri N.S.Cheema, General Manager v. The Labour Court Patiala, C.W.P. No. 4299 of 1981 decided on April 5, 1984 (this reliance was wrongly placed as this judgment had taken a view to the contrary to the proposition referred to above).
2. Gurkirat Singh Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) admittedly remained absent from duty for more than ten days without sanctioned leave. Notice was sent to him asking him to report for duty which he did not comply with. Action was taken under the provisions contained in P.R.T.C (Condition of Appointment and Regulations) 1981 which provides that a workman would lose his lien on the job if he remains absent from duty without sanctioned leave for more than ten days. The workman being aggrieved claimed a reference under the Act.
3. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act :--
Whether termination of services of Shri Gurkriat Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled? Case of the petitioner was that he had put in six years of service under PRTC respondent as Driver and that his services had been wrongly terminated without any notice, charge-sheet enquiry or compensation - He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service with full backwages.
4. Petitioner-management contested the reference on the ground that the services of the workman have been terminated by the Senior Depot Manager, Chandigarh as the workman was wilfully absent from duty; that the action was taken against the workman under the rules applicable i.e. P.R.T.C. (Conditions of Appointment and Regulations) 1981. A. Preliminary objection was also taken to the effect that the reference was not maintainable and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :--
1. Whether the reference is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to try this reference?
2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?
3. Relief.
6. Trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the workman, under issue No. 2, it was held that the loss of lien would amount to retrenchment and as the services of the workman had been retrenched without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, the order of termination of the services of the workman cannot stand. In view of the finding recorded on issue No. 2, the Labour Court ordered that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages. Aggrieved against the order of the Labour Court, the present writ petition has been filed by the management.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
8. The main reliance of the petitioner was on Siri Ram's case (supra) in which it was held that loss of lien tantamounts to termination from service and not to retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not attracted. No doubt, this judgment does not support the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned single Judge in Siri Ram's case (supra) placed reliance upon the unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 4299 of 1981 (referred to above). We have gone through the decision in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, through Shri N.S. Cheema, General Manager v. The Labour Court, Patiala, C.W.P. No. 4299 of 1981. The view taken by the Division Bench is contrary to the view taken by single Judge in Siri Ram's case (supra). The Division Bench while approving the view taken by another single Judge in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, 1981 (2) Serv LR 445 held as under :
"The question whether loss of lien under the Standing Orders was retrenchment, arose before Tandon. J. in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala 1981 (2) Serv LR 445. This top was a case of absence of the workman without leave. The workman was treated as having lost his lien under the Standing Orders which were the same as in the present case. The Labour Court had held the termination of the services of the workman to be bad for non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (1975-I-LLJ-478) it was held that loss of lien under the Standing Orders was retrenchment in terms of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, attracting the provisions of Section 25F thereto. We respectfully agree with this view."
The reliance placed by the Single Bench in Siri Ram's case on the Division Bench Judgment in C.W.P. No. 4299 of 1981 was thus misplaced. We have also perused the view taken in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, and that of the Division Bench carefully. We find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (supra), and Division Bench judgment of this Court in C. W.P. No. 4299 of 1981. Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not raise any meaningful argument to challenge the correctness of the view taken in these two judgments. Thus, we reiterate the view taken in these two judgments and hold that the order of loss of lien from service would amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act. Provisions of Section 25F of the Act are attracted and the order passed without complying with the provisions of Sections 25F of the Act, is bad in law. Even if it is taken for the sake of argument that the order Ex. M.8 does not amount to retrenchment but to misconduct on his part being absent from duty, there is no evidence on record to show that explanation of the workman was ever obtained. Workman was never served with any notice to show cause against his absence, if any. We uphold the view taken by the Labour Court that termination of services of the workman was bad in law. The operation of the impugned order with back wages was stayed by this Court while admitting the writ petition. The workman shall now be entitled to the backwagcs as ordered by the Labour Court. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.