Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Skypak Services Specialists Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 5 December, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999 &
other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999
Date of Decision: 05.12.2013
M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T.
Chandigarh
.....Respondents.
2. Civil Writ Petition No. 8782 of 1999
M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T.
Chandigarh
.....Respondents.
3. Civil Writ Petition No. 8890 of 1999
M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T.
Chandigarh
.....Respondents.
Kumar Amit
2013.12.20 15:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999 &
other connected cases 2
4. Civil Writ Petition No. 8891 of 1999
M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T.
Chandigarh
.....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Nemo.
****
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
****
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (Oral)
This order will dispose of four identical writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 7976 of 1999 (M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh), 8782 of 1999 (M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh), 8890 of 1999 (M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh) and 8891 of 1999 (M/s Skypak Services Specialists Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh) filed by the same management against the similar impugned awards passed by the learned Labour Court, directing the reinstatement of the respondents-workmen with continuity of service and 50% back wages. However, for the facility of reference, facts are Kumar Amit 2013.12.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999 & other connected cases 3 being culled out from CWP No. 7976 of 1999 While issuing notice of motion on 4.6.1999, this Court passed the following order:-
"C.M. Allowed as prayed.
Contends that the Management is willing to take the workman back in service on the same terms and conditions on which he was employed earlier.
Notice of motion for 17.8.1999. Recovery of back wages will remain stayed meanwhile."
The above said order would show that the petitioner- management itself accepted the claim of the respondents-workmen qua reinstatement with continuity of service.
Notice was issued only qua back wages.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents- workmen. Writ petition was admitted vide order dated 3.10.2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Nobody is present on behalf of either of parties. After careful perusal of the record and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner-management violated the mandatory provisions of the law while terminating services of the respondents-workmen, neither the petitioner can be allowed to draw Kumar Amit 2013.12.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999 & other connected cases 4 any benefit out of its own wrong, nor the respondents-workmen can be made to suffer for no fault on their part. Further, the learned Labour Court had rightly moulded the relief while granting back wages only to the extent of 50%. It is not the pleaded case on behalf of the petitioner-management that the respondents-workmen were not unemployed during the pendency of the reference before the learned Labour Court. The respondents-workmen were always ready and willing to join, but it was the petitioner-management, who did not allow them to join. Services of the respondents-workmen were terminated in glaring violation of the mandatory provisions of law contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act' for short).
Under these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order even qua the relief of back wages to the extent of 50%, granted in favour of the respondents-workmen. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court deserves to upheld in toto. Once the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the management has violated the provisions of law contained in Section 25-F of the ID Act and specific finding has been recorded to that effect, normal rule is reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The learned Labour Court would do well while moulding the relief at the time of passing of the award.
In the present case, learned Labour Court proceeded on correct appreciation of law, while granting 50% back wages. Further, once the termination of services was found to be illegal, ordinarily the Kumar Amit 2013.12.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No. 7976 of 1999 & other connected cases 5 workman would be entitled for full back wages until and unless, it is proved that he is gainfully employed during the relevant period when the matter was pending before the learned Labour Court.
The above said view taken by this Court also finds support from the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, ILR (1979) 2 (P&H) 243.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that all these writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, these must fail. No case of interference has been made out.
Resultantly, all the four writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 05.12.2013 AK Sharma Kumar Amit 2013.12.20 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document