Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Ropar and Others v. Labh Singh and Another

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

¶1All the aforesaid 14 writ petitions would decide the fate of separate award(s) dated 24.05.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patiala( hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'),  while answering the references under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), as depicted in the aforementioned table,   whereby termination of the services of the CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 4 - workman(s) has been held illegal and bad in law i.e. in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947,   and they have been entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. Out of aforementioned  14 petitions, petitions mentioned at Sr.   Nos.   01   to   07   have   been   filed   by   the  Deputy Commissioner(Collector), Ropar (Punjab) and others (Management), for setting aside of the respective award(s) passed by the Tribunal, whereas petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 08 to 14 have been filed by the workman(s) seeking modification of the award by granting full back wages.

¶2Learned counsel for the the parties  are in unison that the decision of one writ petition, by examining one of the award passed by the   Tribunal,   would   cover   all   the   issues   involved   in     respective references, which were referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. Moreso, the facts of these petitions are identical. Accordingly,  to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, the facts as pleaded in CWP No. 23524 of 2017, are being referred in subsequent paras of this judgement, by treating the same as lead case.

¶3Petitioners-Deputy Commissioner(Collector), Ropar, Punjab and others (being Management) have filed the present writ petition CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 5 - challenging the award dated 24.05.2017(Annexure P-1), passed by the Industrial   Tribunal-cum-Labour   Court,   Patiala,   whereby   reference No.216 of 2008, under Section 10(1) (c) of the Act of 1947  has been answered partly in favour of respondent No.1-Labh Singh (workman).

¶4Pleaded case of the workman before the Labour Court is that he worked with the Management as Data Entry Operator from 11.11.1991 to 30.06.1995. At the time of termination from service, workman  was drawing the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 30.06.1995, without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Further pleaded that even, some of the new employees junior to the petitioner are still working with the Management. Thus, workman prayed for reinstatement in service with its continuity and full back wages, as the alleged termination is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.

¶5To counter the pleadings, Management filed its written statement and pleaded that material facts have been concealed from the Court by the workman and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Broadly, it was pleaded that the services of the workman were of contractual nature and for his removal, a proper procedure had been adopted. After filing of the replication by the workman, learned CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 6 - Tribunal framed following six issues, vide order dated 03.08.2010: "1. Whether the services of workman, were terminated illegally by the respondents?OPW

¶2Whether   the   reference   is   not maintainable?OPM

3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this reference?OPM

4. Whether the reference time barred?OPM

5. Whether the dispute between the parties is not covered under the definition of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?OPM

6. Relief"

¶6At the stage of the evidence of the workman, Management did not appear before the Labour Court and therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2011. On  moving an application dated 13.09.2011 by the Management, the said ex-parte order was set aside by recording the no objection of AR of the workman. Again on 23.10.2012, respondents failed to appear in the Court and thus, Management was again proceeded against ex-parte resulting into the passing of the ex-parte award dated 01.04.2014 in favour of the workman. Again an application for setting aside of the ex-parte award, was moved, which was was allowed on 21.12.2015, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- and thus, the reference was restored. Instead of receiving the   cost amount, workman filed a writ petition bearing  CWP-1404  of  2016,  which   was   decided   vide  order  dated

02.02.2016. Ultimately, issue reached before the Division Bench of this CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 7 - Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in LPA No.691 of 2016 and vide order dated 05.04.2016, Hon'ble Divison Bench Observed as under: "We thus allow this appeal in part and modify the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal dated 21.12.2015 and direct respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial   Tribunal   is   directed   to   accord   only limited opportunities, i.e. not more than two or three,  to respondent  Nos.2 to 4 to lead their evidence"

¶7After receiving the cost amount as imposed by the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the process of recording of evidence started and after leading of evidence by both the sides, learned Tribunal decided issue Nos.1 to 5 collectively.

¶8While stepping into the witness box as WW1, workman proved his pleadings and also proved the nature of work that he was doing with the Mangement i.e. making entries of the land record of District, Ropar and to sell that record (Jamabandis ) to the land owners on cash payment (fee). Workman also deposed that he completed 240 working   days  of  service  in  preceding   one  year  from  the  date   of termination.

¶9On the other hand, Management produced  Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal (MW1), who tendered his affidavit Ex.M1 stating therein that the services of the workman were of contractual nature and thus, CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 8 - same being hit by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947, workman is not entitled for any relief or regularization. The Contract offer regarding Data Entry Operator dated

02.01.1992 and terms and conditions No.3 to 8 recorded in Ex.R1 are necessary to be detailed hereunder: "3.  That you will be given Rs.2.50/- per Khewat

4.  That this is purely a contract job.

5.  that after reviewing the performance in first two months, the contract can further be extended at the discretion of the undersigned.

6.  That   you   have   to   maintain   strict discipline in the computer centre and any act of indiscipline will result in termination of contract. Absence  from duty without  prior sanction will result in cancellation of contract and you will be liable to pay Rs.500/- as damages to the undersigned.

7.  That the commencement of contract is from 11-11-1991.

8.  The offer does not vest any right on part of operator to claim any preferential right for further absorption."

¶10From the material available on record, learned Labour Court made its observation that from the cross-examination of MW1 and document   Ex.R1   i.e.   contract   offer   issued   by   Additional   Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, it is clear that the contract   commenced from

11.11.1991. From the deposition of the said witness, it also comes out that workman worked on contract  from 02.01.1992 to 30.06.1995 and the said period was extended from time to time. Thus, learned Tribunal conclued that workman had completed more than 240 days of service in CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 9 - preceding one year from the date of his termination. Attendance of the workman was also proved from the affidavit Ex. W38.  Qualifying of the type   test   and   undergoing   of   the  "Nehru   Rojgar  Yojna   Computer Training" by the workman and his co-workers is also well proved from the documents available on record as Ex.W1 to Ex. W37.

¶11Management   could   not   dispute   the   correctness   of   the documents. Not only this, Labour Court also considered the letter (Ex. W29), wherein it is mentioned that work of computerization of land record was still incomplete because of lack of staff. Even,  there was a letter (Ex.W36) available on record , which shows that there is dire need of creation of post of Data Entry Operator. By considering several other circumstances, Labour Court ultimately reached to the conclusion that the workman falls within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 and for the said purpose it relied upon "Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 AIR

(SCW) 3455" . Relvant paragraph Nos.25 and 27 of the said judgment are reproduced herebelow: "25.  In   furtherance   of   the   aforesaid resolution,   the   respondent   engaged   the appellant, who was already in its employment, as a Clerk for a period of six months on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month At the end of six months, the respondent passed another resolution dated 30.11.1995 and again employed the appellant for a period of six months   from   1.11.1995   to   20.4.1996.   This exercise   was   repeated   in   1996   and   the CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 10 - appellant's term was extended for six months from 1.5.1996. However, his engagement was discontinued w.e. 30.9.1996 without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation as per the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 251 F of the Act. It is true that the engagement of the appellant was not preceded by an advertisement and consideration of the competing claims of other eligible persons but that exercise could not be undertaken by the respondent because of the ban imposed by the StateGovernment. It is surprising that the Division Bench of the High Court did not notice this important facet of the employment of the appellant and decided the writ petition by assuming that his appointment/engagement was contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We may also add that failure of the Director, Local Self Government, Punjab to convey his approval to the resolution of the respondent could not be made a ground for bringing an end to the engagement of the appellant and that too without complying with the mandate of Section 251F (a) and (b). It has been further held as under : "27. The plea of the respondent that the action taken by it is covered by Section 2(00)

(bb) was clearly misconceived and was rightly not entertained by the Labour Court because no material was produced by the respondent to show that the engagement of the appellant was discontinued by relying upon the terms and conditions of the employment". 121 !hus, b3 considering the -acts in totalit3 regarding the co"2letion o- *&. 1or ing da3s  b3 the 1or "an in the 2receding one 3ear till the date o- ter"inationF contract 1as e<tended -ro" ti"e to ti"e and 1or  o- co"2uteriCation is still e<isting and not co"2lete, this Court is in de-inite agree"ent 1ith the -indings recorded b3 learned 6abour Court and in such a situation, Section * #oo/ #bb/ o- the Act o- %(&0 CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 11 - would not be applicable.

¶13At this stage, learned counsel for the Management submits that the Industrial Dispute is liable to be answered against the workman also on the doctrine of delay and laches because, with termination of the workman, cause of action, if any, had accrued to them in the year 1995 itself.  However, all the seven references were referred for adjudication in the year 2008. Thus, there has been an unreasonable delay of over 14 years in referring the dispute.

¶14On this aspect, this Court finds that already learned Labour Court was already conscious of the situation and therefore, has not granted any monetary benefits towards back wages. In other words, there is elaborative reason in the award for reinstatement of the workman in service by granting notional benefit of continuity of service but no back wages have been awarded. Therefore, while deciding the reference, learned Labour Court has already maintained the balance by weighing the scale of justice.

¶15After going through the complete set of pleadings and the reasons assigned in the award by learned Labour Court and also after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court  is not inclined to cause any interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, all the 7 writ petitions filed by the Management and the 7 CWP-  23524 of 2017  (O&M)  &  connected petitions  - 12 - writ petitions filed by the workman(s) are hereby dismissed.

¶16Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   in   any,   in   the aforementioned 14 writ petition  are disposed of accordingly. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE April 30, 2024 rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned?  Yes/No Whether reportable?  Yes/No

CWP- 23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment Reserved on:24.04.2024 Judgment Pronounced on: April 30,2024 Sr. Case No. Case Title Referen Date of No ce No. awardPetitioner(s) Respondent(s) . before Labour Court 01 CWP- Deputy Com- Labh Singh 216 of 24.05.2017 23524 of missioner(Col- and another 2008 2017 lector), Ropar (Punjab) and others 02 CWP- Deputy Com- Sarabjit and 215 of 24.05.2017 23527 of missioner(Col- another 2008 2017 lector), Ropar (Punjab) and others 03 CWP- Deputy Com- Paramjit 217 of 24.05.2017 23538 of missioner(Col- Singh and an- 2008 2017 lector), Ropar other (Punjab) and others 04 CWP- Deputy Com- Jasvir Kaur 214 of 24.05.2017 23539 of missioner(Col- and another 2008 2017 lector), Ropar (Punjab) and others 05 CWP- Deputy Com- Naresh Ku- 220 of 24.05.2017 23540 of missioner(Col- mari and an- 2009 2017 lector), Ropar other (Punjab) and CWP- 23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 2 - 06 CWP- Deputy Com- Satvinder 218 of 24.05.2017 23568 of missioner(Col- Kaur and an- 2008 2017 lector), Ropar other (Punjab) and others 07 CWP- Deputy Com- Amarjit Singh 213 of 24.05.2017 23578 of missioner(Col- and another 2008 2017 lector), Ropar (Punjab) and others 08 CWP- Naresh Ku- Presiding Of- 220 of 24.05.2017 1481 of mari ficer,Indus- 2009 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others 09 CWP- Satwinder Presiding Of- 218 of 24.05.2017 1498 of Kaur ficer,Indus- 2008 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others 10 CWP- Sarabjit Singh Presiding Of- 215 of 24.05.2017 1552 of ficer,Indus- 2008 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others 11 CWP- Amarjit Singh Presiding Of- 213 of 24.05.2017 1618 of ficer,Indus- 2008 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others 12 CWP- Jasvir Kaur Presiding Of- 214 of 24.05.2017 1621- ficer,Indus- 2008 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and CWP- 23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 3 - 13 CWP- Labh Singh Presiding Of- 216 of 24.05.2017 1624 of ficer,Indus- 2008 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others 14. CWP- Paramjit Singh Presiding Of- 217 of 24.05.2017 1639 of ficer,Indus- 2018 2019 trial Tribunal, Patiala and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH ARGUED BY: For State/Management:Mr. Brijesh, Asst. A.G., Punjab. For Workman(s): Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate Ms. Kanika Toor, Advocate and Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate (in CWP Nos.1481,1498,1552, 1618, 1621, 1624, 1639 of 2019) Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate, (in CWP Nos.23524, 23527, 23540, 23568, 23578 of 2017