C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.13522 of 1999
Date of Decision: 31.07.2009
Avtar Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Sharma Chhibbar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner, who had been employed as Sweeper-cum-
Chowkidar in a hostel run under a particular scheme called the Pre-
Matric Scholarship Scheme by the Scheduled Castes and Backward
Classes Welfare Department, Punjab had been removed from service on
01.04.1992, which became subject of challenge through an adjudication
referred before the Labour Court, Patiala. The proceedings ended in a
compromise where an award was passed in terms thereof directing
reinstatement with continuity of service. It is an undisputed fact that he
did rejoin as per the terms but terminated again on 28.02.1997 when the
Government decided not to operate the scheme and closed down the
hostel.
2. The writ petition challenges the order of termination as being
illegal and violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and
seeks for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -2-
reinstatement and other consequential reliefs.
3. Learned counsel, Ms. Monika Chhibbar Sharma, appearing
for the State contested that the petition is not maintainable for, the relief
that could effectively be adjudicated before the Labour Court cannot be
a matter for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. She
further stated that the facts in the petition are disputed and this Court
shall not exercise writ jurisdiction in such a situation.
4. When there had been a re-induction of the workmen by the
Department of the State assuring him of a continuity of service and a
publication of award in terms of a compromise, it is untenable that the
services of such a workman could have been terminated even for
legitimate reasons without following the procedures under Section 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination was illegal per se but
however, having regard to the circumstances that the post itself is not
available, the only appropriate relief shall be to compensate the
petitioner for the illegal termination.
5. It has been a prevalent practice through decisions obtained
through the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other decisions of this Court
that in matters of public appointments where the person, who is
terminated from service in contravention of the provisions of law but
still when such a person cannot be restored to the status quo,
compensation is invariably awarded, having due regard to the number of
years of service, the time spent during litigation, the extent of hardship
suffered by the workman, the nature of service, salary earned etc.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to me a decision in
Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Sham 2009(1) RSJ 95
where the Hon’ble Supreme Court while finding that the order of
C.W.P No.13522 of 1999 -3-
termination was bad was awarding a compensation of Rs.3 lacs. This
decision cannot help the petitioner as a guide for fixing the quantum of
compensation for, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case
where they not only found that the termination was bad but they also
found that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement. Having regard to
the situation where the petitioner had undergone a long drawn litigation
of over 27 years instead of directing reinstatement, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court directed Rs.3 lacs as compensation.
7. In this case, the right of reinstatement is not a remedy which
is available to the petitioner. It may not be, therefore, possible to treat
him on par with the situation that obtained in the case that was dealt
with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In my view, applying the
parameters set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same judgment
relating to compensation, I would think that a compensation of Rs.1 lac
shall be awarded to the workman. This amount shall be paid within a
period of 8 weeks from the date when the copy of the order is received,
failing which it shall bear simple interest @ 7.5% per annum.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 31, 2009
Pankaj*