Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narata Ram vs The Presiding Officer And Others on 17 May, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.19271 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION : 17.5.2012
Narata Ram
...Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer and 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 respodnents
....
Notes: 1.Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This is workman's writ petition against the impugned award dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) in Reference No.28 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 CWP No.19271 of 2009 2 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 vide verbal order on 18.6.2004. It is not disputed that the petitioner had put in about 16 years and 5 months 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 Narata Ram was justified or not. The Labour Court framed four 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 16 years and 5 months of service and completed the continuous service of 240 days.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurvinder Singh vs. The Presiding Officer & Others decided on 15.5.2012 wherein it has been held as under:-
"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, CWP No.19271 of 2009 3 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 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."
The aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact the case of the present petitioner is on a better footing since he has put in 16 years and 5 months of service. This petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 22.10.2009 (P-1) is set aside. The respondent-Department is directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back-wages, since he was CWP No.19271 of 2009 4 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 17.5.2012 MFK