CWP No.92 of 2007 [1]
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.92 of 2007
Date of Decision: 04 - 09- 2008
Bhateri Devi ....Petitioner
v.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- ....Respondents
Labour Court, Panipat and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Ms.Abha Rathore, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Hooda, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Present petition has been filed by Bhateri Devi who admittedly
was appointed as a Sweeper by the Executive Engineer, Water Services
Division, Panipat (hereinafter to be referred as, `the management’) in the
year 1977. Services of the petitioner were dispensed with in the year 1998.
Thus, she has performed the duties with the management for a period of 22
years. While deciding issue No.1, the Labour Court had recorded the
admission of the witness of the management that the petitioner has worked
continuously from 1977 to 28.2.1998. Learned Labour Court has declined
CWP No.92 of 2007 [2]
the reference holding that part time worker is not entitled to retrenchment
compensation, as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It has been recently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Uttranchal Forest Hospital Trust v. Dinesh Kumar, reported as 2008(1)
SCC 542 that reinstatement of a workman into the service who was working
as part-timer was unjustified. In Gobind v. The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Jalandhar and another, Civil Writ Petition No.4660 of 1999,
decided on 22.5.2008, a Full Bench of this Court has held that a part time
worker is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. The witness of the
management MW-1 Hukam Singh, J.E. has admitted that the Rest House
where the petitioner was working had been closed. Petitioner-workman is a
lady. She was a part time Sweeper. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that
she used to work daily for four hours. She has rendered service for almost
22 years with the respondent-management. She is in litigation since
14.3.2000 when the demand notice was served. Recently in Mehboob
Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gujraula and another, 2008(1) SCC 575,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of
directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen
should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [See M.P.
Admn v. Tribhuban, (2007)9 SCC 748].”
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a lady,
served the management for 22 years and she is in litigation for the last 8
years, to balance of equity, we are of the view that a monetary compensation
can be granted in her favour. Therefore, we direct respondent No.2 to pay to
CWP No.92 of 2007 [3]
the petitioner a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The amount of
compensation be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from
today. With this modification, we uphold the award Annexure P4.
Petition stands disposed off.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
JUDGE JUDGE
September 04, 2008.
RC