IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1253 of 2008.
Date of Decision : February 16, 2009.
Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum- Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, and another. ...Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ashima Mor, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated
06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, wherein the reference has been
answered in favour of the workman and he has been held entitled to
reinstatement and continuity of service alongwith 25% back wages.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the findings
which are recorded by the Labour Court holding the workman to have
completed more than 240 days in 12 preceding months from the date of his
engagement are accepted, the workman would not be entitled to
reinstatement on the ground that the initial appointment of the workman was
C.W.P. No. 1253 of 2008. -2-
not in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service. He further
contends that in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Regional Engineering College, now National Institute of Technology
(Deemed University), Kurukshetra Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, and another 2007(6) S.L.R. 464, the engagement of the respondent
on contractual basis falls within the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, not amounting to retrenchment and
therefore, his reinstatement cannot be ordered.
He relies upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of The
Director, Central Sheep Breeding Farm Hisar Versus The President,
District Agriculture Workers Union and another (in C.W.P. No. 917 of
2007, decided on 28.04.2008), wherein this Court had in similarly placed
situation held that the termination would be covered under Section 2(oo)(bb)
of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, does not amount to
retrenchment.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent states that on a
specific finding having been given by the Labour Court that the workman
has completed 240 days in the 12 preceding months and that provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with,
therefore, there is no reason why the workman should not be taken back in
service.
I have gone through the award passed by the Labour Court and
have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by
counsel for the parties. A perusal of the award would show that the post, on
which the workman was engaged was on 89 days basis which was extended
from time to time stood abolished and the workman was thus dis-engaged.
C.W.P. No. 1253 of 2008. -3-
Further in the light of the Judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court
in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar
and another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar
Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus
Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus
Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, where it has been held that the
post under the State is required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment
Rules and by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. The
workman-respondent was engaged on daily wages without following the
rules and principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, even if the workman-respondent has completed 240 days of
service, the said workman-respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also
for grant of back wages. The workman-respondent in the light of the
Judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to
reinstatement against a public post nor he is entitled to any back wages.
This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh
and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may
not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be
entitled to compensation for wrongfully termination of his services. The
workman-respondent has worked with respondent-management from
01.07.1995 to 31.10.1997, as per the award. In the light of the fact that the
workman-respondent has no right for reinstatement in the light of above
judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to
settle equities between the parties.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and
the award dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Central
C.W.P. No. 1253 of 2008. -4-
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, is hereby
set aside. The workman-respondent is held entitled to compensation of Rs.
20,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.
The management-petitioner is directed to release the said
amount i.e. Rs. 20,000/- to the workman-respondent within a period of two
month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
February 16, 2009.
sjks.