Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divisional Forest Officer vs Mange Ram And Another on 25 July, 2013
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No.3359 of 2013 and
LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-25.07.2013.
Divisional Forest Officer, Railway Road, Karnal. .........Appellant.
Versus
Mange Ram and another .........Respondents.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.
*****
Present:- Mrs. Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein order passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat on the application filed by workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') had been challenged.
Along with the LPA, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 230 days in filing of the appeal, duly supported by an affidavit of Divisional Forest Officer, Karnal, has also been preferred.
Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -2-
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, on application for condonation of delay as also on merits.
Before rival claims of the parties are adjudicated, it would be appropriate to take stock of the facts of the case about which there is no dispute.
The workman had claimed to be appointed as a daily wager, since 21.10.1984 till 30.11.1996, disclosing, further that his services were illegally terminated on 1.12.1996. He had raised an industrial dispute whereby the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal which had answered the same in favour of the workman on 15.2.2006. Sequelly, the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 29.12.1999.
This award was challenged by the State in CWP No.3324 of 2007 which was allowed by this Court on 2.4.2008 in terms of the detailed judgement rendered in CWP No.13469 of 2005, whereby the award of the Tribunal was modified to the extent that in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, the workman was held entitled to compensation @ `20,000/- for each completed year of his service.
As the amount of compensation was not paid by the management, an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was filed. Accepting the claim of the workman, the Tribunal had awarded compensation for 12 completed years of service i.e. from 1984 till 1996. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the management by way of civil Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -3- writ petition, verdict whereof is impugned in the present appeal. Challenge of the management is manifold. These objections are:
(1) No finding was recorded by the Tribunal regarding the period for which the workman had worked;
(2) Compensation has been granted merely on the basis of claim made by the workman without support of evidence;
(3) Claim of the workman was only back wages but compensation to him had exceeded quantum of his back wages; and, (4) Application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, was not maintainable as benefit to him could not have been computed in terms of money.
On the part of the workman asserting validity and legality of the orders dated 17.6.2011 of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat as also of the learned Single Judge of 12.10.2012, it is claimed that award dated 17.6.2011 was rendered only in the nature of compliance of a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered on 2.4.2008 in CWP No.13469 of 2005 titled "State of Haryana Vs. Ishwar Singh and another" vide which payment of compensation instead of reinstatement and back wages, had been ordered for the workman. It is thus contended that the workman got much- less than what he was to get as per original award of 15.2.2006, whereby his reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages had been ordered.
Question vociferously raised by the management regarding quantum of total service of the workman with this management, does not arise now. Right from the very start, the case of the workman is that he had been working as a Casual Labourer with the management since 21.10.1984 Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -4- and had continuously been attending to his duties till 30.11.1996 when his services had illegally been terminated on 1.12.1996. He had neither been given any notice nor had been paid wages in lieu of the notice and even no retrenchment compensation had been paid to him.
Case of the workman right from the very beginning is certain and specific that he was working with the management since 21.10.1984 and had continued till 30.11.1996. This matter had not been challenged by the management. They could have disputed this position as a matter of fact by production of relevant record, which was in their possession and available with them. Right from the time of raising of an industrial dispute by the workman after the termination of his services w.e.f. 1.12.1996, he has never changed his stand and which had remained unrefuted by the management.
In the interface of this factual matrix, learned Single Bench of this Court was right in approving approach of the Tribunal whereby it had drawn adverse interference against the management for non-production of the entire record to rebut the assertion of the workman that he had completed 240 days in one calendar year earlier to his retrenchment. Learned Single Bench had also noticed that the management had been following different yardsticks even in similarly situated cases. It was further noticed that in connected CWP No.19641 of 2011, plea of the management was that the record up to 24.9.1996 had been weeded out but in the CWP No.18685 of 2011, the management had produced record of the workman only from 1992 onwards, when all the workmen in both the above-stated writ petitions had Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -5- been working under the same management i.e. Divisional Forest Office, Karnal.
On the basis of uncontroverted pleadings of the workman coupled with non-production of relevant evidence of the management, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that the workman had worked with the management since 21.10.1984 to 30.11.1996. Thus, it was not on the asking of the workman that this period of total service of the workman was calculated but entire record and attending circumstances were taken into account.
It is worthwhile to note here that not knowing that the award of 15.2.2006 rendered by the Tribunal (vide which reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, had been ordered in his favour) had been set aside and instead only payment of yearly compensation had been ordered by judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, the workman had been prosecuting his cause for his reinstatement while laying claim to his full back wages as is clear from his application (Annexure P-7).
As a matter of fact, the said award of 15.2.2006 rendered by the Tribunal had been set aside and only compensation @ `20,000/- per completed year of service had been ordered on 2.4.2008. Application Ex.P7 made by the workman clearly indicates that he had sought implementation of the award dated 15.2.2006 without any knowledge or information that the said award had already been set at naught.
Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -6-
Taking into consideration developments on setting aside the award of 15.2.2006, and implementing Division Bench judgment of this Court of 2.4.2008, the management had calculated the amount of compensation.
It is in this context that original demand of workman of back wages had taken the clock back to count the period of total service as the Division Bench judgment of this Court had ordered for payment of compensation @ `20,000/- for every completed year of service, which was calculated from the date of joining of the workman i.e. 21.10.1984 till the date of termination of service on 30.11.1996.
Comparison of quantum of compensation with quantum of back wages which the workman was to get, had he been reinstated, is of no relevance as the verdict vide which he was to get reinstatement with back wages, was reversed. The workman was then to get compensation in terms of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.13469 of 2005 decided on 2.4.2008.
Since the amount could be computed in terms of money and was in the nature of implementation of a court order, application under Section 33-C (2) was maintainable before the Tribunal and cognizance of this fact had rightly been taken in favour of the workman in the impugned judgment of this Court.
We find that there is neither any factual nor legal error in the impugned judgment.
Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1301 of 2013 (O&M) -7-
Consequently, the instant appeal being without merit is dismissed with costs.
However, the application for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit is allowed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge (Rajive Bhalla) Judge July 25, 2013 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2013.08.08 14:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document