Punjab-Haryana High Court
Principal, St. Joseph'S Boys School vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 6 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1998)IIILLJ165P&H
ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated March 17, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, vide this award, the Labour Court has held that the action of the Petitioner in terminating the services of Mr. Jagir Singh, who was employed as a Physical Training Instructor was illegal. Consequently, he has been ordered to be reinstated. The petitioner has questioned the validity of this award on various grounds including that the teacher is not a workman and that he having filed a civil suit which was later on withdrawn, the Labour Court was not entitled to go into the matter. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner was still on probation and that the termination of his services was in conformity with the terms of appointment. According to the Petitioner, the employees are liable to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. The Petitioner who was born in the year 1932 would have, in any case, retired on July 30, 1990 and as such the Labour Court could not have ordered his reinstatement in the year 1994. Lastly, it was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent teacher had filed a false claim thai he was unemployed. He had been infact employed in Tagore Day Boarding School.
2. Initially, the claim made on behalf of the Petitioner was sought to be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent- teacher. However, the matter has been ultimately settled by mutual compromise. The Petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 10,000 to the respondent-teacher by way of compensation vide Bank Draft No. 489514 dated October 4, 1996 drawn on the Indian Overseas Bank, Jalandhar Cantt. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Learned counsel for the respondent teacher admits that the amount has been paid and that it has been accepted in full and final settlement of the claim by the respondent. Mr. Jindal states that the respondent-teacher has no claim against the management in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court which may be set aside. He only submits that the part of the amount due to the respondent-teacher on account of Provident Fund is lying in deposit. The Petitioner may have it paid to him.
3. Mr. Gurdeep Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, accepts this position and states that if any amount is found lying in deposit in his provident fund account, it shall be got released to the respondent-teacher.
4. In view of the above statements of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated March 17, 1994 is set aside. The respondent shall be paid the amount of Provident Fund as may be lying in deposit in his account within one month or as soon thereafter as possible, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.