Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurvinder Singh vs The Presiding Officer & Others on 15 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 7966 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 15.5.2012
Gurvinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer & Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondents
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?Yes
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This is workman's writ petition against the impugned award CWP No. 7966 of 2010 2 dated 13.2.2009 (P-1) in Reference No.19 of 2005. The reference was made under Clause (C) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The reference has been answered against the workman.
The two basic ingredients are in favour of the workman, as found by the Labour Court itself. The workman had put in 240 days of service with the respondent-Forest Department as a Mazdoor during the relevant period. It is also not disputed that Section 25-F of the Act was violated by the Forest Department when the workman was shown the exit door on 19.6.2004. It is not disputed that the petitioner had put in about 11 years of continuous service as a daily wager Mazdoor in the respondent-Department. The span of service was from January, 1993 to 19.6.2004. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner had not been appointed against a sanctioned or regular post and, therefore, he had no right to continue on the post. The Labour Court remained under a mistaken belief that the petitioner had claimed regularization. The reference to the Labour Court was whether the termination of the services of workman Gurvinder Singh was justified or not. The Labour Court framed five issues. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Labour Court returned a firm finding that the petitioner had put in 11 years of service and had completed the continuous service of 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of termination.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their assistance.
The termination of the petitioner was prior to the decision of the CWP No. 7966 of 2010 3 Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1. Had the petitioner continued in service, he would have fallen in the saving part of the judgment that protected daily wage workers who had put in 10 years of service or more with direction to departments of the State Government to formulate schemes for regularization of long serving labour. The State of Haryana framed a policy in terms of the directions of the in Uma Devi case, supra. The petitioner was, however, not available for receiving those benefits as he was out of service. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Anr. vs. Shankar Shetty, 2010(9) SCC 129. The aforesaid decision is distinguishable on facts and on the ground that the workman therein had worked intermittently. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Labour Court has not returned any finding that the workman in the present case had worked intermittently. The Labour Court has returned a firm finding that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Act. In terms of the law laid down in Anoop Sharma Vs Executive Engineer Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, Haryana; 2000(5) SCC 497, Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 192 and Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur (Appeal (Civil) No.3190 of 2011 decided on 11.4.2011, violation of Section 25-F of the Act would normally result in reinstatement. The State should act as a model employer. It cannot be permitted to exploit a human being for 11 years, violate the CWP No. 7966 of 2010 4 law and show the petitioner the exit door without just cause or legal justification. In the present case, I feel that the Labour Court was not justified in doing what it has done. The matter required to be dealt with some sensitivity. This Court would not countenance that daily wagers are to be dealt with inhumanly or that they are expendable fodder whose services can be utilized for the benefit of the State for 11 years and then be thrown out like pariahs. This award disturbs me. We cannot permit the jungle law to prevail in the Forest Department. Such workman must have the protection of their life, liberty and right to exist in some comfort by securing to them adequate means of livelihood protected under Articles 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India.
I have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned award and directing the respondent-Department to reinstate the workman with full back-wages, since he was kept out of service by an illegal order and the workman did not withhold his labour. This petition is allowed in the above terms with costs of Rs 5000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents for legal expenses incurred.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 15.5.2012 MFK