IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003
Date of decision: 27.11.2009
State of Haryana ....Petitioner
versus
Bir Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent.
----
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. (Oral)
1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement
with continuity of service and back wages from the demand notice dated
26.03.1996. The workman had complained that he had been engaged as
a daily wager in September 1981 and that he had been terminated from
service in the year 1987. The contention of the management was that the
demand itself had been made nearly 10 years after the alleged
termination. The contention was also that there was no order of
termination but the workman himself had voluntarily abandoned the
services. Previously the reference was rejected on the ground of delay
but by a direction of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.13321 of 2000,
Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003 -2-
the Labour Court was directed to consider whether there was any
justification for the delay and whether the claim had become stale or not.
Before the Labour Court, no evidence had been given except his
statement that he had made many representations to the management to
take him back to service. The Court found, on admission by the
management that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous
service before April 1987, granted the relief as mentioned above.
2. The learned counsel Shri Nalwa states that a person like a
daily wager who does not press himself for service, it could not be
expected of the management to secure his presence and reinstate him.
The very fact that the demand notice was made nearly 10 years and
reference was obtained thereafter showed that the management’s
contention was true that the workman had abandoned his services. His
further contention was that no explanation had been given by the
workman and the claim had become stale and the reinstatement awarded
by the Labour Court was unjustified. The learned counsel for the
workman counters the allegations to the fact that even in the previous
proceedings in Civil Writ Petition No.13321 of 2000, there had been
sufficient material placed to show that there had been representations
made by the workman to the management and if the claim was not barred
by limitation since the law does not prescribe a plea of limitation, the
relief of reinstatement for non-compliance of statutory mandate under
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be denied to him.
3. It has been stated times without number that merely because
there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,
Civil Writ Petition No.17815 of 2003 -3-
reinstatement will not be ordered as a matter of course. Again, it will
have to be considered in the context of the availability of work and the
nature of engagement. I find that apart from denying the workman’s
entitlement the management was not contended that it has not possible to
accommodate him to the same post on the ground that there was no work
available. I see no reason to vary the relief of reinstatement. If the
Labour Court had considered the issue of reinstatement favourably and
his entitlement to back wages, I restrict the latter portion of back wages
alone to the period from the date of award of the Labour Court viz., from
04.06.2003 instead of the direction for full back wags from the date of
the demand notice on 26.03.1996. Subject to this variation, the writ
petition is dismissed. There shall be however no direction as to costs.
(K.KANNAN)
JUDGE
27.11.2009
sanjeev