Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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.