IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No.668 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.7.2009
The Haryana State Federation of Consumers' Cooperative
Wholesale Stores Ltd. (CONFED).
-----Appellant
Vs.
The Haryana Confed Employees Welfare Union.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate
for the appellant.
-----
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of
the learned Single Judge, directing giving of retrenchment
compensation in accordance with the rules, which was over and
above the amount of compensation stipulated under Rule 25-F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Delay of 60 days is condoned, subject to just
exceptions. Heard on merits.
3. The respondent is a Union of employees. Its
members were recruited as Salesmen in the year 1981 with the
appellant. The employees are governed by the Confed Staff
LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Service Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”), framed under the
provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, as
applicable to the State of Haryana, (later replaced by the 1984
Act). Rule 35(b) of the Rules provided for retrenchment
compensation equal to one month’s pay and allowances for
every completed year of service which was more than that
stipulated under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The employees were also entitled to the benefit of encashment
of earned leave upto maximum of one month.
4. In December, 2000, the posts of Salesmen were
abolished. Some of the affected employees filed writ petition in
this Court which was dismissed and thereafter, they preferred an
appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking benefit in
terms of Rule 35(b) of the Rules. The Hon’ble Supreme Court,
vide judgment dated 21.11.2005 in Civil Appeal No.302 of 2004
Rajinder Singh Chauhan & Ors. v. State of Haryana and
others, held that they were entitled to benefit under Rule 35(b)
of the Rules. Thereafter, the respondent-Union filed a petition in
this Court, claiming the said benefits. The petition was opposed,
mainly on the ground that the petition was barred by laches.
Retrenchment had taken place in the year 2000 and the writ
petition has been filed after eight years. Even judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had been rendered in the year 2005.
Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) 3
Court in Bhoop Singh v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1414
and State of Karnataka v. S. M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267.
5. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
distinguished the judgments in Bhoop Singh (supra) and S. M.
Kotrayya (supra), relying upon subsequent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v.
C. Lalitha 2006(2) SCC 747 and DB judgment of this Court in
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryanab 2002(3) RSJ 38.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Admittedly, the employees were entitled to benefit
under Rule 35(b) of the Rules. No doubt they did not assert
their right when the cause of action arose in the year 2000.
There is delay in filing the petition even after the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Normal rule is not to entertain a stale
claim but to advance the interest of justice, in a given case, the
Court may entertain a belated claim having regard to nature of
right violated, extent of delay, explanation if any and other
relevant factors. In the present case, the learned Single Judge
has rejected objection of delay in view of parity of employees
who had been given benefit, nature of right being statutorily
recognised right of compensation and no third party right having
accrued. The appellant was required to fulfill its statutory
obligations to the employees who had rendered about 20 years
of service. The appellant is, in substance, a Government
organization. It is not pleaded that there is great financial
LPA No.668 of 2009 (O&M) 4
hardship or any other equitable consideration which may justify
denial of relief. We do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
July 28, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE