High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rajinder Singh v. Presiding Officer & Ors - CWP-4980-2005  RD-P&H 2060 (28 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.4980 of 2005
Date of decision: 28.3.2006
Rajinder Singh v. Presiding Officer and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
ADARSH KUMAR GOE,J.
This petition has been filed against award dated 5.5.2004, Annexure P.9, declining the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with back wages.
Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Gardner-cum-Chowkidar in PWD, Public Health, Haryana on 1.2.1992 and worked upto 31.8.1993 on which date his services were terminated, without CWP No.4980 of 2005 2
complying with provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. By the impugned award, it was held that termination of services of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act but having regard to the fact that he worked only for one and a half years and more than 10 years had passed, appropriate relief to be given to the petitioner will be compensation of Rs.50,000/-, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court and others, AIR 1994 SC 131.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it was held that termination of services of the petitioner was without following procedure laid down under section 25-F of the Act, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.
Learned counsel for the State referred to the written statement filed before the Industrial Tribunal, wherein it is pointed out that the workman was appointed on daily wages and was habitual absentee and did not report of duty after 31.8.1993 and in this situation, Section 25-F was not applicable. It was also pointed out that Public Health department or the State of Haryana cannot be held to be 'industry'.
We may notice some of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3657, it was observed that concept of 'retrenchment' could not be stretched to disengagement of daily wagers. In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., v. Bhola Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1790, para 18, it was observed that completion of 240 days of CWP No.4980 of 2005 3
continuous service may not by itself be a ground for directing regularisation of services, particularly in a case when the workman has not been appointed in accordance with rules. Reference was also made to earlier decisions. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591, para 8, it was observed that there was no rule of thumb that in every case where Industrial Tribunal gave a finding that termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded.
Factors like method of selection, nature of appointment etc. should be weighed and balanced. One of the important factors was the length of service, which had been rendered. In Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another, (2005) 5 SCC 124, para 6, it was held that Labour Court is entitled to grant relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case. In para 16, it was noticed that earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking the view that on dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with back wages must follow, could not be followed and it was necessary to develop a pragmatic approach by arriving at a golden mean. In UP State Brassware Corpn.Ltd and another v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479, para 22, it was observed that no precise formula can be laid down as to when full back wages should be allowed and back wages should not be granted mechanically. In para 43, changes brought about by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing were noticed. Reference was also made to judgment in Rattan Singh v.
Union of India and another, (1997) 11 SCC 396, wherein consolidated compensation of Rs.25000/- was awarded instead of back wages and reinstatement.
CWP No.4980 of 2005 4
We have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are unable to hold that view taken by the Industrial Tribunal calls for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
March 28, 2006 (Uma Nath Singh)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.