Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAKUL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nakul v. State of Haryana & Anr. - CWP-19791-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2112 (29 March 2006)

CWP No.19791 of 2005 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No.19791 of 2005

Date of Decision: 28.3.2006

Nakul

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another.

....Respondents

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Patwalia

Present: Mr. J.S. Manipur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana

for the respondents.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The petitioner was inducted into the service of the respondent - management on 10.3.1993. He allegedly continued to discharge his duties till 30.7.1994, whereafter, his services were terminated by the respondent - management. Dissatisfied with the action of the respondent - management in having terminated his services, the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 27.10.1994, under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute raised by the petitioner workman was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court). The Labour Court having adjudicated upon the controversy raised in the dispute referred CWP No.19791 of 2005 Page numbers

to it, accepted the claim of the petitioner after having concluded, that the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with. It is, therefore, that the Labour Court by its award dated 26.2.1999 ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner workman with continuity in service. In so far as, the back wages are concerned, the petitioner was awarded 25% back wages from the date of his demand notice i.e. 27.10.1994.

A perusal of the award of the Labour Court, which has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-1, leaves no doubt, whatsoever, in our mind, that the Labour Court in its award dated 26.2.1999 granted relief of continuity in service to the petitioner workman. The aforesaid award of the Labour Court, which undisputedly has attained finality between the parties, would have the effect of the petitioner being treated as having continuously served the respondent management with effect from the date of his entry into service i.e. 10.3.1993 till the date he had been reinstated in service in furtherance of the award of the Labour Court dated 26.2.1999.

The controversy in the present writ petition pertains to the regularisation of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached this Court on the issue of regularisation by filing Civil Writ Petition No.8818 of 2005. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 30.5.2005, by requiring the respondents to take a final decision on the legal notice issued by the petitioner, wherein, he had claimed regularisation in service. While adjudicating upon the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in service in furtherance of the order dated 30.5.2005 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8818 of 2005, the CWP No.19791 of 2005 Page numbers

Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.III (B&R Branch), Hisar, passed an order dated 12.12.2005. In the aforesaid order, the authority adjudicating upon the issue, wrongfully found the petitioner entitled to continuity in service only w.e.f. 27.10.1994 by wrongfully interpreting the award of the Labour Court dated 26.2.1999.

In view of our determination hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the claim of the petitioner should have been considered by treating him to be in continuous service w.e.f. 10.3.1993. In view of the above, it is obvious, that the impugned order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) has been passed by taking into consideration wrongful parameters. The impugned order dated 12.12.2005 is, accordingly, set aside. The respondent management is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation by accepting him to have entered into service on 10.3.1993, and by accepting, that he has rendered continuous service thereafter.

Needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Allowed in the aforesaid terms.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( P.S. Patwalia )

Judge.

28.03.2006

sk.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.