Ram Rattan v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Ors

236o INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo o o o o o o o o CWP-10989-2017o(O&M)o o o o o o o o Dateoofodecisiono:04.12.2023o o RAMoRATTANo o o o o o o …Petitionero o Versuso o o THEoPRESIDINGoOFFICER,oLABOURoCOURT,oAMBALAo ANDoOTHERSo o o o o o oooooooooo…Respondentso o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGERo Presento:o Mr.oRajeshoArora,oAdvocateo o o forotheopetitioners.o o o o Mr.oA.S.oVirk,oAdvocateo o o fororespondentsoNo.2oando3.o o HARSHoBUNGER,oJ.o(ORAL)o

1.o o Petitioner-RamoRattanohasofiledotheoinstantowritopetitionoundero Articleso226/227oofotheoConstitutionoofoIndia,oseekingoissuanceoofoaowritoino theo natureo ofo mandamuso foro modifyingo theo awardo datedo 03.12.2015ooooooooooooooooo (AnnexureoP-8)opassedobyotheoLabouroCourt,oAmablao(here-in-afteroreferredo too aso `theo Labouro Court');o wherebyo theo petitionero waso orderedo too beo reinstatedowithocontinuityoofoservice;ohowever,oheohasobeenodeniedotheobacko wages.ooo

2.o o Briefly,o theo petitionero raisedo ano industrialo disputeo regardingo terminationo ofo hiso services,o whicho waso referredo foro adjudicationo too theo learnedoLabouroCourtobelow.o

3.o o Ito appearso thato beforeo theo learnedo Labouro Court,o theo representativeoofotheopetitioner-workmanomadeoaostatementothatohisodemando noticeobeotreatedoasoaoclaimostatement.oTheopetitioneroclaimedothatoheojoinedo theo serviceso witho respondentso No.2o ando 3,o hereino (Management)o ono

01.05.2001oasoaoHelper/BeldaroonodailyowageobasisoinovariousoDivisionsoando heoperformedohisodutiesotootheobestoofohisoability;ohowever,ohisoservicesowereo illegallyoterminatedoono01.06.2007,owithoutogivingohimooneomonth'sonoticeo orosalaryoinolieuothereofoandoaoretrenchmentocompensation,odespiteotheofacto thatoheohadocompletedomoreothano240odays'oserviceoinotheoyearoprecedingotheo dateoofohisotermination.oPetitionerofurtheroclaimedothatotheojuniorsotoohimohado beenoretainedoinoserviceoandofreshohandsohaveobeenoappointed;otherefore,oheo claimedothatohisoservicesohaveobeenoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheoprovisionso ofoSectionso25-F,o25-Goando25-HoofotheoIndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947o(foro shorto`theo1947oAct').o

4.o o Theo afore-statedo claimo ofo theo petitionero waso contestedo byo respondentso No.2o ando 3o (Management)o byo controvertingo allo materialo assertionsoofotheopetitioner-workmanoandoaccordingly,oprayerowasomadeoforo dismissaloofotheoclaimoofotheopetitioner.o

5.o o Ao perusalo ofo theo paper-booko wouldo revealo thato theo learnedo LabouroCourt,oAmbalaopassedoanoAwardodatedo09.02.2011o(AnnexureoP-4),o rejectingotheoclaimoofotheopetitioner.oItoisofurtheroborneooutofromotheopetitiono thatoaoWritoPetitionobearingoCWP-13034-2014ofiledobyotheopetitioneroagainsto theo afore-saido Awardo datedo 09.02.2011o (Annexureo P-4)o cameo too beo dismissedo ino liminio byo thiso Courto ando thereafter,o theo petitionero preferredoo LPAo No.2150o ofo 2014,o whicho waso disposedo ofo byo observingo thato theo petitioner'soremedyowouldobeotoofileoanoapplicationofororeview.oItoappearsothato thereafter,otheoopetitioneroofiledoaoreviewoapplicationobeforeothisoCourt,owhicho cameotoobeoallowedovideoorderodatedo17.07.2015oandobyosettingoasideotheo Awardodatedo09.02.2011o(AnnexureoP-4),otheomatterowasoremandedotootheo learnedoLabouroCourt,oAmbalaoforodecidingotheoreferenceoafresh.o

6.o o Uponoremand,otheolearnedoLabouroCourt,ovideoimpugnedoAwardo datedo03.12.2015o(AnnexureoP-8)ohasoansweredotheoreferenceoinofavouroofo theo petitioner-workmano byo holdingo himo entitledo too beo reinstatedo witho continuityo ofo service;o however,o theo backo wageso wereo deniedo too himo byo observingothatotheoworkmanohasonotomaintainedoinohisodemandonoticeothatoheo remainedounemployedoeverosinceotheodateoofohisotermination.oo

7.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionerosubmitsothatoonceotheolearnedo Labouro Courtobelowo haso comeo too theo conclusiono thatotheoservicesoofotheo petitionerohaveobeenoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofotheo1947o Act;oaccordingly,otheopetitioneroshouldohaveobeenograntedobackowagesobyotheo learnedoLabouroCourtobelow.oAccordingly,otheopetitioner,obyowayoofofilingo theo instanto petition,o prayso thato theo impugnedo Awardo datedo 03.12.2015ooooooooooooooooo (AnnexureoP-8)opassedobyotheolearnedoLabouroCourtobelowobeomodifiedoando necessaryoreliefobeograntedotoohim.o

8.o o Perocontra,olearnedocounseloappearingofororespondentsoNo.2oando 3ohasoopposedotheoprayeromadeoonobehalfoofotheopetitionerobyosubmittingothato theolearnedoLabouroCourtohasopassedoaowell-reasonedoandojustifiedoAward,o whichodoesonotocalloforoanyointerference.oItoisosubmittedothatoasoperotheosettledo law,oifotheoterminationoofoaoworkmanoisoheldotoobeobadoonoaccountoofotheo violationoofotheoprovisionsoofotheo1947oAct;oevenothen,otheograntooforeliefoofo reinstatemento witho continuityo ando backo wageso iso noto automatic.o Itooooooooooooooooo isoosubmittedoothatootheoopetitionerohadonotoevenoclaimedoinohisodemandonotice,oo whichowasotreatedoasoaoclaimostatementothatoheohadoremainedounemployedo everosinceotheodateoofohisotermination;oaccordingly,otheolearnedoLabouroCourto wasotiustifiedoinonotoawardingotheo(ackowagesotootheo'etitioner.o!ccording*y,o 'rayeroforodismissa*oofotheowrito'etitionohaso(eenomade.o :.o o Io ha.eo heardo *earnedo counse*o foro theo res'ecti.eo 'artieso ando 'erusedotheo'a'er$(ookowithotheiroa(*eoassistance.o

¶10Contours of the scope of interference by High Court in disciplinary proceedings are well settled. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, 2015(1) S.C.T. 5, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether : a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person GURPREET KAUR could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

xxx

xxx

xxx

¶18The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court…"

11.o o InotheocaseoofoManagementoofoRegionaloC.E.oP.H.E.D.oRanchio v.o Theiro Workmeno Rep.o byo Districto Secretary,o 2018(4)o SCTo 427,ooooooooooooooooo Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:o "11.o Ino ouro consideredo opinion,o theo Courtso belowo completelyofailedotooseeothatotheobackowagesocouldonotobeo awardedo byo theo Courto aso ofo righto too theo workmano consequento upono settingo asideo ofo hiso dismissal/terminationoorder.oInootherowords,oaoworkmano hasonoorightotooclaimobackowagesofromohisoemployeroaso ofo righto onlyo becauseo theo Courto haso seto asideo hiso dismissalo ordero ino hiso favouro ando directedo hiso reinstatementoinoservice.o

12.o Itoisonecessaryoforotheoworkmanoinosuchocasesotoo pleadoandoproveowithotheoaidoofoevidenceothatoafterohiso dismissalo fromo theo service,o heo waso noto gainfullyo employedo anywhereo ando hado noo earningo too maintaino himselfoor/andohisofamily.oTheoemployeroisoalsooentitledo tooproveoitootherwiseoagainstotheoemployee,onamely,othato theo employeeo waso gainfullyo employedo duringo theo relevantoperiodoandohenceonotoentitledotooclaimoanyobacko wages.oInitialoburdenois,ohowever,oonotheoemployee.oo

13.o Inosomeocases,otheoCourtomayodeclineotooawardotheo backowagesoinoitsoentiretyowhereasoinosomeocases,oitomayo awardopartialodependingouponotheofactsoofoeachocaseobyo exercisingoitsojudicialodiscretionoinotheolightoofotheofactso ando evidence.o Theo questions,o howo theo backo wageso iso requiredotoobeodecided,owhatoareotheofactorsotoobeotakeno intooconsiderationoawardingobackowages,oonowhomotheo initialo burdeno lieso etc.o wereo elaboratelyo discussedooooooooooooooooo inooseveraloocasesobyothisoCourtowhereinotheolawoonotheseoo questionsohasobeenosettled.oIndeed,oitoisonoolongeroreso integra.oTheseocasesoare,oM.P.oStateoElectricityoBoardov.o JarinaoBeeo(Smt.),o2003(3)oS.C.T.o625o:o(2003)o6oSCCo 141,o G.M.o Haryanao Roadwayso v.o Rudhano Singh,o 2005(3)o S.C.T.o 559o :o (2005)o 5o SCCo 591,o U.P.o Stateo Brasswareo Corporationo v.o Udayo Naraino Pandey,o 2006(1)oS.C.T.o77o:o(2006)o1oSCCo479,oJ.K.oSyntheticso Ltd.ov.oK.P.oAgrawalo&oAnr.,o2007(2)oS.C.T.o79o:o(2007)o 2oSCCo433,oMetropolitanoTransportoCorporationov.oV.o Venkatesan,o2009(3)oS.C.T.o749o:o(2009)o9oSCCo601,o JagbiroSinghov.oHaryanaoStateoAgricultureoMarketingo Boardo &o Anr.,o 2009(3)o S.C.T.o 790o :o (2009)o 15o SCCo 327)o ando Deepalio Gunduo Surwaseo v.o Krantio Junioro Adhyapako Mahavidyalayao (D.Ed.)o &o Ors.,o 2013(4)o S.C.T.o716o:o(2013)o10oSCCo324.oo

14.o Theo Courto is,o therefore,o requiredo too keepo ino considerationoseveralofactors,owhichoareosetooutoinotheo aforementionedocases,oandothenotoorecordoaofindingoasotoo whetheroitoisoaofitocaseoforoawardoofotheobackowagesoand,o ifoso,otoowhatoextent.oo

15.o Comingonowotootheofactsoofotheocaseoatohand,oweo findo thato neithero theo Labouro Courto ando noro theo Higho Courtokeptoinoconsiderationotheoaforesaidoprinciplesoofo law.o Similarly,o noo partyo too theo proceedingso eithero pleadedooroadducedoanyoevidenceotooproveotheomaterialo factsorequiredoforoawardoofotheobackowagesoenablingotheo Courtotooawardotheobackowages.oo

16.o Onotheootherohand,oweofindothatotheoLabouroCourto inooneolineosimplyodirectedotheoappellanto(employer)otoo payofullobackowagesoforoaolongoperiodotoo37oworkmeno whileodirectingotheiroreinstatementoinoservice.oo

17.o We,ohowever,ofindothatotheoHighoCourtoinoparao9oofo theoorderoplacedorelianceoonotheodecisionoofothisoCourtoooooooooo inooDeepalioGunduoSurwaseo(supra)ooforooholdingothatotheoo questionoofobackowagesoisocoveredobyothisodecision.oIno ouro view,o theo Higho Courto erredo ino soo observing.o Ito shouldo haveo seeno thato ino theo caseo ofo Deepalio Gunduo Surwaseo (supra)o itself,o thiso Courto referredo decisions,o whichoweohaveomentionedoinoparao13oaboveoandothenoino parao38oofoDeepalioGunduoSurwase,othisoCourtoculledo outotheoratiooofoallotheocitedocases.oThereafter,othisoCourto inoDeepalioGunduoSurwase'ocaseograntedoreliefotootheo concernedoworkersoonotheofactsoinvolvedoinothatocase.oIno ouroopinion,otheoHighoCourtodidonotoapplyotheoratiooofo theodecisionoinoDeepalioGunduoSurwaseo(supra)otootheo factsoofothisocaseoproperlyoandoonlyoquotedooneoparaoofo theojudgmentoinoDeepalioGunduoSurwaseo(supra)owhicho containedogeneraloobservations.oThoseoobservationsohado toobeoreadoinojuxtapositionowithoparao38owhichoculledoouto theoratiooofoallotheocaseolawoonotheosubject.oo

18.o Weocannot,otherefore,oconcurowithosuchodirectiono ofotheo Courtsobelowo awardingofullobacko wageso too theo workmano which,o ino ouro opinion,o haso certainlyo causedo prejudiceotootheoappellanto(employer).oo

19.o However,o havingo regardo too theo factso ando circumstancesoofotheocase,oweoconsideroitojustoandopropero ando ino theo interesto ofo justiceo too awardo too theseooooooooooooooooo 37oworkmeno50%oofotheototalobackowages…"o

12.o o Keepingo ino viewo theo afore-saido legalo position,o ito wouldo beo appositeo toorefero tootheodemandonoticeo servedobyo theopetitioner-workmano uponotheorespondents-Management,owhichoreadsoasoundero:-o o o "Too o o o 1)o TheoViceoChancellor,o o o o o KurukshetraoUniversity,oKurukshetra.o o o o o 2)o TheoExecutiveoEngineer,o o o o o ConstructionoBranch,oKurukshetraoUniversity.o o o o Subject:o DemandoNoticeounderoSectiono2-AoofotheoI.D.oAct.o o o Sir,o o o o o Itois,osubmittedoasoundero:-o o

1.k Thatotheoworkerojoinedohisoservicesowithotheomanagementoinotheo yearo 01.05.2001o ono dailyo wageso aso helper/Beldaro ino variouso Divisiono undero theo addresseeo No.2o ando SDO.o Theo workero waso appointedobyotheoorderoofodulyoauthorityoofotheoUniversity.o

2.k Thatotheoworkerohasobeenoperformingohisodutiesotootheobestoofohiso abilitiesoandothereowasonoocomplaintoofoanyokindoagainstohimofromo

3.k Thato theo workero haso beeno workingo continuouslyo againsto ao permanentopost.oAndotheoworkowhichotheoworkerowasoworkingoisoofo essentialo serviceo aso theo conclusiono brancho iso responsibleo foro makingo theo repairo ofo existingo building,o residenceo departments,o hostelsoandoofficeoetc.o

4.k Thatotheoworkeroworkedouptoo31.05.2007oandoono01.06.2007,otheo workeroandohisootherocolleaguesowereonotoallowedotooperformotheiro dutieso ando theo SDOo toldo themo thato theiro serviceso haveo beeno terminated.o Theo workero haso workedo continuouslyo witho theo management.oHeohasocompletedo240odaysoduringopreceedingo12o twelveo months.o Theo workero waso neithero servedo witho oneo montho noticeonoropaidooneomonthosalaryoinolieuoofonoticeoandoheowasoalsoo notopaidoretrenchmentocompensationoonoorobeforeoterminatingohiso services,owhichoisoviolationoofoSectiono25FoofotheoI.D.oAct.o

5.k Thatotheomanagementohasoterminatedotheoservicesoofotheoworkero whileoexercisingotheirocolourfulorights,oillegally,oarbitraryowhichoiso nototenableoinotheoeyesoofolaw,otheomanagementohasoterminatedotheo servicesoofotheoworkeroinoorderotooavoidotheomembershipoofoESI,o EPFoetc.obecauseothereoareomoreothano20oworkers/employeesoareo workingo there,o whicho iso alsoo ano unfairo labouro practice.o Theo managementohasonototerminatedotheoservicesoofotheoworkeronamelyo RamoMaruti,oBaijoNath,oShivoRattan,oJarnailoSinghoandootherowhoo areojuniorotoohim.o

6.k Thato theo managemento haso engagedo newo persons,o througho contractorowhichoisoalsooanoounfairolabouropracticeobecauseotheo workowhichotheoworkerowasoworkingoisoofopermanentonatureoando doesonotorequireoworkothroughotheocontractor.o

7.k ThatotheoworkerorequestedotheoconcernedoXen,owithohisocolleagueso tooreinstateohimobutoheotoldohimoandohisocolleaguesothatorespondento No.1ohasonotoapprovedotheironameobecauseoheoandohisocolleagueso hasoaolengthoofoserviceoandotheyohaveotooregularizeotheiroservicesoifo workingoandohisocolleaguesoareoretainedoinoserviceoandothatoisowhyo heoandohisocolleaguesoservicesohaveobeenoterminated.o

8.k Thatotheoterminationoofoservicesoofotheoworkeroisoillegal,onulloando voidocryptic,ounconstitutionaloonoaccountoofounfairolabouropracticeo andosameoisoalsooinoviolationoofoSec.o25F,o25Goando25HoofotheoI.D.o Act,owhichoisonotoenableoinotheoeyesoofolawoandosameoisounableotoobeo setoaside.o o o o Itoisotherefore,oyouoareorequestedotooreinstateotheoworkeroinoserviceowitho fullobackowagesoandocontinuityoofotheoservice,oinotheointerestoofojustice,oequityoandolaw.o o Datedo18.06.2007o o o o o o o Workero Note:o o o o o o o o o oooSd/-o 7ocopiesohaveobeenoo o o oooooo o o(RamoRattanoS/ooSh.oOmoParkash)o submittedobeforeotheolabour-o o o o oooooooH.No.o176/B,oVasantoVihar,o Cum-ConciliationoOfficero o o o o oooKarnalo(Haryana)o o o o o o o o o ooooooKurukshetra."o o

13.o o Ao perusalo ofo theo aforesaido demando noticeo ofo theo petitioner,o whichowasotreatedoasohisoclaimostatementobeforeotheoLabouroCourt,owouldo manifesto thato noo avermento waso madeo byo theo petitionero thato heo waso un-employedoorowasonotogainfullyoemployedopostoterminationoofohisoservices.o

14.o o Itoisowellosettledothatoitoisonecessaryoforotheoworkmanotoopleado andoproveowithotheoaidoofoevidenceothatoafterohisodismissalofromotheoservice,o heowasonotogainfullyoemployedoanywhereoandohadonooearningotoomaintaino himselfoor/andohisofamily.oTheoemployeroisoalsooentitledotooproveoitootherwiseo againstotheoemployee,onamely,othatotheoemployeeowasogainfullyoemployedo duringotheorelevantoperiodoandohenceonotoentitledotooclaimoanyobackowages.o Initialoburdenois,ohowever,oonotheoemployee.oo

15.o o Thus,oinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocaseowhereo theopetitioner-RamoRattanohasonotoevenoclaimedobeforeotheoLabouroCourtothato heohasoremainedoun-employedooronotogainfullyoemployedopostoterminationoofo hisoservices,otheoLabouroCourtowasojustifiedoinonotograntingofullobackowages.o

16.o o Ino viewo ofo theo legalo positiono aso indicatedo aboveo ando ino theo peculiarofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase,onoointerferenceoisocalledoforoino theo impugnedo Awardo datedo 03.12.2015o (Annexureo P-8)o passedo byo theo learnedo Labouro Court.o Resultantly,o theo instanto petitiono failso ando theo writo petitionoisoaccordinglyodismissed.oo

17.o o Allopendingoapplication/s,oifoany,oshalloalsoostandoclosed.o o o Decembero04,o2023o o o o o (HARSHoBUNGER)o gurpreeto o o o o o o o JUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable:o o o Yes/No