Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Minor Irrigation ... vs Madan Lal Aneja And Anr on 28 October, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 28, 2014
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation
Limited .......Petitioner
Versus
Madan Lal Aneja and another .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Raj Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.1.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Limited has filed the instant petition impugning the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby an application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') had been allowed and directions have been issued to pay an amount of `1,14,480/- to the workman along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 11.7.2008 i.e. the date of filing of the application.
2. Brief claim that was set up by the workman was that he had been appointed with the Corporation as Junior Assistant/ Accounts Clerk w.e.f. 31.7.1973 under training on a fixed stipend SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013 2 of `250/- per month. This was followed by a regular appointment on a regular scale of Junior Assistant/Accounts Clerk on 20.2.1974. Workman was promoted as Head Clerk on 7.12.1978 and subsequently designated as Head Assistant. Workman was placed under suspension for the period from 8.4.1994 to 4.4.1999 on account of initiation of certain departmental proceedings. During the period of suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance @ 50% of pay from 8.4.1994 to 18.12.1997 and @ 75% from 19.12.1997 to 4.4.1999. He was re-instated w.e.f. 5.4.1999.
3. Precise claim raised in the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act was for release of annual increments during the suspension period. It is such claim that has been accepted in the light of the impugned order dated 14.12.2012, Annexure P3.
4. Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, would submit that the Corporation was closed down w.e.f. 30.7.2002 and services of the respondent - workman were dispensed with on 30.6.2002 after completing all due formalities. As such, it is contended that there was no relationship of master and servant between the Corporation and the respondent and on such ground alone, the impugned order cannot sustain. Learned counsel would further submit that the workman had been proceeded against departmentally and had been placed under suspension and for such suspension period, the requisite subsistence allowance as per Rules was duly paid. The departmental proceedings had culminated in awarding punishment of reduction in rank and the Punishing Authority had directed the suspension period to be treated as leave without pay SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013 3 and no payment was to be made for the said period. It has been vehemently argued that such aspect has been completely overlooked while allowing the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act in holding the respondent-workman to be entitled to the annual increments during the period of suspension.
5. Mr.Raj Kaushik, learned counsel representing the respondent-workman, would submit that the claim as regards sanction of increments during the period of suspension has been rightfully allowed in terms of Rule 4.7 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume 1, Part 1. Learned counsel further argues that Exhibit W15 had been duly adduced on record before the Labour Court which was a copy of an office order under signatures of the Executive Engineer concerned bearing endorsement dated 18.1.2001 and in which it had been certified that the period of suspension was liable to be counted towards increments.
6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
7. In the first instance, it would be apposite to refer to the punishment order dated 16.5.2000, Exhibit W13, and the same having also been placed on record by the petitioner-Corporation as Annexure P4, along with the instant petition. The operative part of the order reads in the following terms:
"After perusing all the relevant record charge sheet, representation submitted by Sh.M.L.Aneja, enquiry report, the report of the forensic lab and other aspect of the case it is well established and proved on record that all the charges against him stands duly SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013 4 proved. However, taking a lenient view in the matter the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Head Asstt. in the scale of `1600-2900 to the rank of Asstt. in the pay scale of `1400-2600 is hereby inflicted instead of dismissal from service. It is further ordered that the suspension period is treated as leave without pay and no further payment is to be made for this period.
Chandigarh Sd/-
Dated: 16.05.2000 Managing Director,
HSMITC, Chandigarh."
8. Clearly in terms of such punishment order, the workman was imposed the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Head Assistant to the rank of Assistant. It was further directed that suspension period is to be treated as leave without pay and no further payment is to be made for this period.
9. The clear consequences that would flow from the punishment order were that the suspension period was to be treated as leave without pay and apart from subsistence allowance already paid and released in favour of the workman, no further wages/salary for the suspension period were to be granted.
10. However, insofar as the claim of increments during the period of suspension is concerned, the same would be governed by a specific statutory provision i.e. Rule 4.7 of the Civil Service Rules, Volume 1, Part 1 and which is as follows:
"4.7. - An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course, unless it is withheld. An increment SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.11.04 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18482 OF 2013 5 may be withheld from a Government employee by a competent authority if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments."
11. It has gone uncontroverted that the Punishing Authority had not passed any order withholding the increments for the period the workman had remained under suspension.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh has taken the correct view while holding the respondent-workman to be entitled to increments towards the period of suspension i.e. 8.4.1994 to 4.4.1999. The impugned order dated 14.12.2012 allowing the application of the respondent-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Act is in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions. No basis for interference is made out.
13. Petition is dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
OCTOBER 28, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK
2014.11.04 10:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document