IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001 (O/M).
Date of Decision : February 12 , 2009.
State of Haryana. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
Shish Pal and others. ...Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa,
Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 1.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated
14.06.2000 (Annexure-P-11), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Rohtak, wherein the workman has been held entitled to reinstatement
on his previous post with continuity of service and 25% back wages w.e.f.
06.06.1994 onwards.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Court has come
to a conclusion that the workman has as a matter of fact been negligent in his
conduct and had remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, the
Court could not turn around and say that as the inquiry has not been held,
therefore, the principles of natural justice have not been complied with,
leading to holding that termination of the workman was not in accordance
with law. He further contends that the finding with regard to the provisions
C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. -2-
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with,
also cannot be sustained.
I have heard counsel for the parties and also have gone through
the records of the case and impugned award. Perusal of the award would
show that the Labour Court had on the basis of the evidence led by the
parties, have given a finding on the issue. The issue before the Labour Court
was as to whether the termination of the service of Shish Pal is justified and
in order ? If not to what relief he is entitled to ? It is in this context that the
evidence which has been led by the parties has been taken into
consideration. The factual aspect that no inquiry has been held against the
workman before the petitioner-department terminated his service, has not
been disputed before the Labour Court.
In view of the categoric admission on the part of the petitioner
about non holding of enquiry before the Labour Court and in view of the fact
that the Labour Court has not held any inquiry as per Section 11 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and no issue with regard to the question whether any
inquiry has been held in accordance with law and whether the same is
justified or not has been framed, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the
Labour Court that the inquiry has not been held resulting in the principles of
natural justice having not been complied with, is quite justified. It is not in
dispute that the respondent has been working with the petitioner-department
for the last about 10 years and thus there was no occasion for the Labour
Court to reject the contention of the workman that provisions of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with in the light of
the admission of the petitioner-department that no inquiry and no
C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. -3-
retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman, therefore, the
termination was in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Counsel for the petitioner now contends that in view of the fact
that the workman was a daily wager and despite of non compliance of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman cannot be held to
be entitled to be reinstated, as his appointment was not in accordance with
the statutory rules as it was a public post. The requirement of appointment
as per statute on such public post were mandatory for complying with the
provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for
the petitioner contends that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of
Ghaziabad Development Authority and another Versus Ashok Kumar and
another, 2008(4) S.C.C. 261, Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat,
Gajraula, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 575, M.P. Administration Versus Tribhuwan,
(2007) 9 S.C.C. 748, and State of M.P. and others Versus Lalit Kumar
Verma, (2007) 1 S.C.C. 575, has held that the post under the State is
required to be filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules and by inviting
applications from all eligible candidates. The workman-respondent was
engaged on daily wages without following the rules and principles of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, even if the
workman-respondent has completed 240 days of service, the said workman-
respondent is not entitled to be reinstated and also for grant of back wages.
The workman-respondent in the light of the Judgments of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court referred to above, is not entitled to reinstatement against a
public post nor he is entitled to any back wages.
This Court in case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh
and another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 788, has held that although a daily wager may
C.W.P. No. 5727 of 2001. -4-
not be entitled to reinstatement but the workman-respondent would be
entitled to compensation for wrongful termination of his services. In the
light of the fact that the workman-respondent has no right for reinstatement
in the light of above judgments, however, he is held entitled to compensation
of Rs. 60,000/- to settle equities between the parties.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and
the award dated 14.06.2000 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside holding him entitled
to reinstatement and back wages. The workman-respondent is held entitled
to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement.
The petitioner-department is directed to release the said amount
i.e. Rs. 60,000/- to the workman-respondent within a period of two month
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
February 12, 2009.
sjks.