IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 2673 of 2009 and
C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008.
Date of Decision : February 12 , 2009.
Ved Parkash. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal ...Respondents.
-cum-Labour Court-II, Chanidgarh, and another.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
C.M. No. 2673 of 2009.
Application allowed as prayed for and the documents
Annexures-R-5 to R-7 are taken record.
C.W.P.No. 9914 of 2008.
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated
09.10.2006 (Annexure-P-4) wherein the reference has been answered against
the workman, however, the workman has been held entitled to retrenchment
compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% if the payments of the dues
has already not been made which he was offered but he failed to collect.
C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. -2-
Counsel for the petitioner contends that for compliance of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the retrenchment compensation
should have been paid to the workman alongwith retrenchment notice which
has not been done, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. He contends that the
notice was never served upon the workman, therefore, the stage of payment
of retrenchment amount has not arrived.
A perusal of the award would show that the workman was
issued retrenchment notice on 27.02.1990 but the workman refused to
receive the same, this is an admitted fact which has come out from the
affidavit which has been produced by the workman in evidence before the
Labour Court. In view of the specific admission on the part of the workman
that he had refused to accept the notice, it cannot be said that the notice was
not served upon the workman. The notice dated 27.02.1990 as has been
referred by the Labour Court, which has been placed on record as Annexure-
P-1 with the present writ petition, clearly stated that one month’s wage in
lieu of notice and the amount of retrenchment compensation be collected by
the workman from the S.D.O. C/W S/D-II B.P., Bhiwani. The retrenchment
was to take effect from 28.02.1990, and therefore, as per the notice the said
amount was to be collected by the workman from the authorised officer.
Perusal of the Annexure-P-1 further states that a copy of the said notice be
put on the notice board of the office and place of work as well which indeed
was done as has come on the record.
Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that it is only an
offer for collection of the retrenchment amount and retrenchment
compensation has not been paid alongwith notice of retrenchment. He relies
C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. -3-
upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Management of
Kodumudi Growers Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kodumudi Versus Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and another, 1998(7) S.L.R. Page 77,
to contend that mere offer does not amount to compliance with the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This judgment is
based on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmail
Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, 1991 (1) S.C.C. 189,
(relevant para No. 9).
In the present case as the facts would depict and as stated
above, the workman was required to collect the amount from where he
always receives his wages and that was the proper place where the money
would have been paid to him as per rules and further there was still time for
the retrenchment to take effect and there was sufficient notice to the
workman to collect his compensation amount before the retrenchment was to
become effective. Therefore, this judgment would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case.
In view of the above, no illegality can be found with the award
passed by the Labour Court which would call for any interference by this
Court.
Finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Counsel for the respondent No. 2 intimates that a cheque
amounting to Rs. 4,997/- was sent at the address of the workman-petitioner
and after receiving the cheque the workman-petitioner returned the same by
registered post. He has offered the same to counsel for the petitioner in the
Court today but he has refused to accept the same.
C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. -4-
The respondents are directed to again send the cheque to the
petitioner within a period of one week from today. It is made clear that from
the date of issuance of the cheque there would be no further interest as per
the award of the Labour Court as the petitioner has earlier received the
cheque and then returned the same by registered post.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
February 12, 2009.
sjks.