IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.19307 of 1997
Date of decision:10.11.2009
Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala and others.
....Petitioners
versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another.
...Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
----
K.Kannan, J.
C.M. No.16341 of 2009
For the reasons stated in the application, the writ petition is
ordered to be restored to its original number.
Applications is allowed.
Civil Writ Petition No.19307 of 1997
1. A short point on which the Labour Court found that the
termination was not in strict compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, was that the amount of retrenchment compensation and
salary for the notice period had been sent by registered post along with
the cheque to an address which the Court found to be not appropriate
Civil Writ Petition No.19307 of 1997 -2-
address of the workman. The dispatch of the cheque itself was denied by
the workman only on the ground that it had not been sent to the correct
address. The Labour Court accepted the contention and found the
termination of service to be bad.
2. The management put in evidence a copy of the retrenchment
notice (Ex.M-1, dated 23.08.1989); copy of the cheque for Rs.1172/-
(Ex.M-2) and, copy of the postal cover, which was sent to the workman
at the home address (Ex.M-3). The letter had been addressed to the
workman on the following address namely:
“Malkiat Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh, Resident of
Village & Post Office Badrukha, District Sangrur.”
The address which the workman had given in the demand notice
contained an additional detail apart from the Village by describing
himself as a resident of Model Town, Basti. The Court, therefore, held
that the compensation had not been sent to the correct address.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out
that even in the claim statement which he had filed in Court, the
workman had given only the address which had been set forth in the
postal cover found as Ex.M-3. I do not believe that the non-reference to
“Model Town Basti” could make any difference so long as the identity of
the person with reference to his father name, Village and the District as
stated in the postal cover, are admitted to be correct. The statute itself
does not set out the mode of tender under Section 25-F. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Delhi Transport Undertaking Versus Industrial
Tribunal-AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1503, had laid down while dealing
with the issue of payment of wages for a period of one month to be duly
Civil Writ Petition No.19307 of 1997 -3-
complied in a case where a tender was made before dismissal but it could
not force the employee to receive the payment before the dismissal
became effective. An offer of tender made to a workman personally or by
a postal money order or a demand draft or any other well recognized
mode shall be taken to be a valid tender as required under Section 25-F
(b). The amount that was offered is not challenged before me as
inadequate or that it was not in compliance of Section 25-F. The
challenge, however, was that there was no valid tender in the eye of law,
since the postal cover did not bear the correct address. In view of the
finding that I have rendered that the address given was correct, the
consequence has to be that there was proper statutory compliance and the
workman could have no grievance of any violation of law.
4. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances,
set aside and the writ petition is allowed. There shall be, however, be no
order as to costs.
(K.KANNAN)
10.11.2009 JUDGE
sanjeev