AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Palli, J.—These are intra-court appeals, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against a common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2014, vide which the award rendered by the Labour Court, Bathinda, dated 14.12.2010, reinstating the workmen with continuity of service and full back wages, was modified and instead the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the workmen'') were awarded compensation. Being aggrieved, the workmen are before us. The facts are being culled out from LPA No. 1519 of 2014.
The workmen raised an industrial dispute, as their services were purported to have been terminated in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ''the Act''). It was claimed that they had worked as Mate from 01.02.1982 to 09.10.1985 with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Management''). The claim of the workmen was resisted by the Management on the ground that the dispute was raised after an inordinate delay of 19 years and thus, the workmen were not entitled to any relief. Further, the Lining Division at Faridkot, on account of reduction of work and lack of funds, had become defunct and thus, services of the workmen were terminated. So much so, the workmen had even accepted the retrenchment compensation many years back and therefore were estopped to raise any dispute. Further, neither any junior was retained in service nor any fresh appointments were made.
The Labour Court, on a consideration of the dispute and the evidence on record, concluded that there indeed was no delay at the instance of the workmen in raising the industrial dispute. It was observed that a reference sought by the workmen was rejected by the appropriate government and in fact, they had to approach this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 5364 of 2005), which was accepted on 29.4.2005 and resultantly, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Further, the Act does not envisage any limitations. Rather, Section 10 stipulates that a reference can be made at any time. Since the termination of the services of the workmen were found to be in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act, they were held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages,
Learned Single Judge, on a comprehensive analysis of the matter in issue, the material on record and in reference to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, , arrived at a conclusion that the workman had sought to raise a stale dispute after a gross delay of 18 years. It was observed that reference to the order declining the reference and the order dated 29.4.2005 passed by this Court, vide which the appropriate government was directed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, would not advance the claim of the workman as in any case he raised a demand notice in 2002 i.e. 17 years after the termination. Further, the Labour Court had failed to take into account that period of 25 years had elapsed between the order of termination and award. That being so, it was concluded that to reinstate the workman that too with continuity of service and full back wages was not justified. The conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge reads as thus:--
"In the present case, for 18 long years, the workman chose to sleep over their rights and then raised a stale dispute. The Labour Court also failed to take into account the fact that a period of 25 years had elapsed between the order of termination and the date of award. At that stage, to reinstate the daily wagers alongwith the full back wages without taking into account the fact that the demand notice was served 18 years later was not justified especially keeping in mind that the Division where they were working had become defunct.
The Apex Court in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, held that the mode, manner and nature of employment, length of service and the delay in raising the industrial dispute has to be taken into consideration while directing reinstatement. The relevant portion reads thus:--
"29. In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute."
There is, however, no denying the fact that a categorical finding has been recorded that the workman''s statutory right to receive compensation at the time of retrenchment was violated and some juniors had been retained in service. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the relief can be suitably modified by awarding compensation. Keeping in view the years of service the workman had put in service. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Executive Engineer v. Ishwar Singh, 2009(1) R.S.J. 24 awarded compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- for each completed year of service.
In the present bunch of cases, the workmen have worked with the petitioner-corporation from periods ranging from 2 years and 5 months to 10 years and 1 month as per the schedule which has been appended as Schedule ''A'', which goes on to show the details of the years of service put in by the workman. Accordingly, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, and Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation''s case (supra) wherein, sum of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded as compensation for 8 months of service, the respondent-workmen in the present cases are awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for each completed year of service.
Since the litigation has been continuing since 2002, an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- is also granted as litigation expenses over and above the compensation payable on account of each completed year."
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the LPA paper book.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that termination of the services of the appellant was in apparent breach of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act and thus, reinstatement with all consequential reliefs was the inevitable result of an invalid termination. He further submits that once the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with consequential relief, the learned Single Judge ought not to have modified the award and award compensation.
The argument that is being advanced lacks conviction and cannot be countenanced as is being demonstrated hereinafter.
Concededly, services of the appellant were purported to have been terminated on 9.10.1985. Dispute was sought to be raised after an inordinate delay of 17 years as demand notice itself was issued in the year 2002. At such a belated stage, whether it could at all be maintained in law that there exists an industrial dispute or is apprehended, so as to invoke the provisions of Section 10(i)(c) of the Act, is a question, which stares us in the face. However, we are mindful that the question, whether a reference could at all be made at such a belated stage, is no longer open for us to delve into in these proceedings. This court, vide order dated 29.4.2005, had allowed the writ petition preferred by the workmen and directed the appropriate government to refer the dispute. Thus, we rest the matter at that. But the question which still evolves for consideration is, whether the workmen could be reinstated, even when their termination was in breach of Section 25-F of the Act? The answer is No. Principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Development Corporation''s case (supra) postulates that every invalid termination must not be followed by reinstatement with consequential relief. That is not the inevitable consequence in every dispute, notwithstanding any thing. There are hosts of other factors which need to be factored in while awarding the appropriate relief, such as nature of employment, length of service, delay in raising the industrial dispute etc. In the present lis, workmen were daily wagers, the Lining Division they were engaged in had become defunct, the dispute was raised after 17 tears of termination. Not just that, cross-examination (Annexure P-4) of the workman reads as thus:
"It is correct that before retrenchment one month notice was given to me and required retrenchment compensation was also paid. (Himself stated) I received retrenchment compensation under protest. It is correct that during retrenchment, I was working in Faridkot Lining Division which is closed now. It is correct that I was retrenched because of reduction in work. It is wrong that during retrenchment of myself and other workmen, the seniority was taken into consideration. It is correct that I submitted demand notice after about 18 years of retrenchment. I used to do labour type work."
Therefore, reinstatement after over two and half decades was not in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. What surprises us the most is that the Labour Court even awarded full back wages to the appellants with effect from 1985 i.e. for a period of 25 years. This, in our view was nothing but rewarding the workmen for having raised a stale and settled claim. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly modified the award and awarded suitable compensation to the appellants keeping in view the number of years of service put in by them.
No other argument was advanced. In the wake of the position, as set out above, and the conclusion that has been recorded by the learned Single Judge, there hardly exists any ground, least plausible in law, to interfere with the judgment being assailed in the present appeals. The same being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.