Sukhvinder v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court and Ors

JAGMOHAN BANSAL  , J. (Oral)

¶1The   petitioner   through   instant   petition   under   Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) whereby Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat has ordered the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation instead of reinstatement.

¶2The petitioner joined respondent as Sweeper-cum-Peon on

08.06.2009 and worked till 12.12.2017. He was a part time employee and came to retrenched without complying with provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). The Labour Court has concluded   that   petitioner   worked   for   240   days   during   12   months preceding the date of retrenchment, thus, he could not be retrenched without complying with mandate of Section 25F of ID Act. He was retrenched without complying with Section 25F of ID Act, thus, he needs to be compensated. The Labour Court relying upon judgment of 'BharatAsgar Ali CWP-11386-2024 2 Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs Man Singh', 2012 (1) SCT 641  as well as BSNL Vs. Bhuramal, 2014 (3) SCT 49 has concluded that it would not be appropriate to reinstate the workman and payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- would be justified. The relevant extracts of findings recorded by Labour Court are reproduced as below: "In view of legal proposition discussed above, if we take a look on the evidence on record, it is evident that claimant Sukhvinder has filed his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A reiterating the   stand   taken   in   the   claim   petition.   The   cross-examination of this witness would reveal that a suggestion has been given to CW-1 Sukhvinder that it is correct that he was appointed on part time basis w.e.f. 08.06.2009. Further CW-2 Pratham Clerk O/o DFO, KKR produced the authority letter Ex.P-2 and requisitioned record Ex.P-

3. CW-3 Sh. Nishu Kumar, Branch Manager SBI produced the account statement Ex.P-4 pertaining to the account number   55146528968   pertaining   to   claimant   for   the period   from   01.04.2016   to   20.03.2017   and   further revealed about the amount received from the O/o DFO, KKR from 01.04.2016 to 20.03.2017 and gave details that amount of Rs.4680/- was credited on 04.05.16, Rs.4680 dated 04.05.2016, Rs.4680/- dated 05.07.2016, another 4680/- 5.07.2016 Rs.4680/- dated 03.10.2016, Rs.4680/- dated 29.11.2016, Rs.4680/- dated 29.11.2016, Rs.9360/- dated   29.11.2016   and   Rs.   23400/-   dated   20.03.2017 (running into 1 to 12 pages) and produced the certified copy of  the requisitioned record  and Ex.P-1  account passbook.   In   addition   to   this,   the   perusal   of   cross-examination of RW-1 Shamsher Singh, RFO reveals that the witness has stated that claimant as per record had worked from 2013 to 2017 and the last salary drawn by claimant   @   Rs.4680/-   in   the   year   2016-17   and   in December   2017   claimant   got   Rs.4810/-.   The   witness further admitted that claimant worked continuously from

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 continuously and the record CWP-11386-2024 3 Ex.R-4   is   correct.   That   Mark-   3   to   Mark-8   are   the documents   belonging   to   the   documents   Ex.R-10.   The witness stated that he did not know if any notice was given to claimant when he was removed from the job.

13. In view of above, one thing is admitted that the claimant   has   by   way   of   bank   statement   and documentary evidence and by way of testimony of RW-1 in cross-examination has proved that he worked in the   department   from   01.04.16   till   31.03.2017 continuously. Perusal of Ex.P12 further goes on to show that amount of Rs.2500/- was given to claimant by the office of respondent and Ex.P-13 by which Rs.500/-   were   received   by   claimant   and   paid   by respondent RFO CFC, Karnal further substantiates the stand of claimant. Similarly, Ex.P-14 pertains to the   period   October   2013   &   Ex.P-15   to   Ex.P-26 different payments were received by claimant for the time period for 2013-14. Hence, it is held that the claimant has been able to prove that he worked continuously   for   a   period   of   240   days   prior   to termination of his services by the respondents. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimant.

¶18 In view of legal proposition discussed above, it is   evident   that   the   claimant   Sukhvinder   has categorically stated in affidavit Ex.WWI/A that he was appointed   by   the   respondent   on   08.06.2009   as Sweeper cum Peon on daily part time basis and had worked up to 12.12.2017 continuously. It is already held that the claimant has been able to prove that he worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to termination of his services by the respondents. The witness RW-1 Shamsher Singh, RFO stated that he did not know if any notice was given to claimant when he was removed from the job. Therefore, it is held that respondents have violated Section 25-F of the I.D. Act CWP-11386-2024 4 and in view of judgment of Ld. Apex Court. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Man Singh, 2012(1) SCT 641 (supra) it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement has to be given as a matter of right. Reliance can also be   placed   upon  Jagbir   Singh   v.   Haryana   State Agriculture   Marketing   Board,   2009(3)   SCT   790 (supra) under which it has been held that in the recent past, there had been a shift in the legal position and the Court had consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination of an employee was in   contravention   of   the   prescribed   procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement was held to be the prudent relief to meet the ends of justice. Claimant was appointed on part time basis only as Peon cum Sewadar. Hence, this Court proposes to Award a compensation   of   Rs.   75,000/-   to   be   provided   by respondents to the claimant within a period of 2 months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which respondents shall further pay interest 6% per annum from the date of Award till the date of making payment.

¶19 In view of my findings upon above-said issues, the   claim   statement   dated   20.11.2019   is   hereby allowed to the effect that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to be provided by the respondents within a period of 2 months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which respondents shall further pay interest 6% per annum from the date of Award till the date of making payment. Copy of this Award   be   sent   immediately   to   Deputy   Labour Commissioner, Panipat for information and necessary action. Record of this Court be consigned to the records." CWP-11386-2024 5

¶3From the perusal of finding recorded by Labour Court, it is difficult to conclude that there is any jurisdictional error or factual infirmity in the impugned order. The respondent is an instrumentality of the State.  The   petitioner   was   never   appointed   after   following procedure prescribed for appointment of Government employees. He was a part time employee and his last drawn salary was Rs.4810/-. In terms of Section 25F of ID Act, he was entitled to compensation of not more than Rs.25,000/-,   however,   Labour   Court   has   awarded   compensation   of Rs.75,000/-. Any order of reinstatement would amount to regularization of   a   workman   who   was   not   appointed   after   following   procedure prescribed for appointment of regular employees by State authorities. Any order of reinstatement would also be contrary to Constitution Bench Judgment in :Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi', (2006) 4 SCC 1.

¶4In the wake of above discussion and findings, the impugned order does not warrant interference.

¶5Dismissed. ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE

29.10.2024 Ali

CWP-11386-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11386-2024 Date of Decision:29.10.2024 SUKHVINDER ......... Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AND ORS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Yashveer Kharb, Advocate for Mr. Paramjeet Singh Phor, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. ****