Chief Engineer vs Iqbal Singh

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No. 14716 of 1993 and CWP No. 3805 of 1994. One is Chief Engineer, Punjab PWD B & R, Patiala v. Iqbal Singh and another. Second is Iqbal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. Both these writ petitions have been filed against the same award. CWP No. 14716 of 1993 has been filed by the management, challenging the grant of compensation of Rs. 16,200/- instead of granting reinstatement to respondent-workman. CWP No. 3805 of 1994 has been filed by the workman claiming the reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. Facts of the case are hardly in dispute. It was the case of respondent-workman that before his services were terminated on 30.08.1988, he had already rendered service for 1068 days as Laboratory Assistant with the petitioner-management. It was further alleged by him that his services were illegally terminated without issuing any notice for one month or salary in lieu thereof. No retrenchment compensation was paid. He raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings failed and industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication. Both the parties led their respective evidence.

After hearing the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the Learned Labour Court came to conclusion that it was not the case for reinstatement. Instead of directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman, the petitioner management was directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 16,200/- towards compensation to the respondent-workman by way of impugned award dated 20.05.1993 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved against the impugned award, petitioner-management has filed the present writ petition.

The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 30.11.1993 passed by Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition, civil miscellaneous application No. 4494 of 1994 was moved by the petitioner-management, seeking stay of the impugned order. However, it seems that treating the impugned award to be an award of reinstatement, operation thereof was stayed, subject to Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide order dated 05.05.1994. The reply was filed by the respondent-workman to the above said miscellaneous application and the same was heard and decided vide order dated 09.09.1994, in the following terms:

"Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the validity of the award of the labour court and prays for the stay of its operation. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-workman had been appointed for a fixed term and the termination of his services at the expiry of that term did not amount to retrenchment so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F or to entitle the court to award him compensation. Mr. S.S. Khaira, appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the compensation has been rightly awarded.

Heard. The operation of the impugned order is stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. It is, however, directed that the hearing of the writ petition may be expedited. If possible, it may be listed for hearing within one year."

In the interregnum, respondent-workman also filed CWP No. 3805 of 1994 (Iqbal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others) challenging the same award, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service. It was ordered to be heard with CWP No. 14716 of 1993. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-management submits that the respondent-workman was engaged for a fixed term and after expiry thereof that term was not extended. In such a situation, the termination of service of respondent No. 1 would not amount to retrenchment and the statutory protection u/s 25F will not be available to the respondent-workman. He further submits that once it would not amount to retrenchment in the given fact situation of the case, the Learned Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the petitioner-management to pay lump sum amount of Rs. 16,200/- to the respondent-workman towards compensation. He prays for setting aside the impugned award by allowing the present writ petition. He also prays for dismissing the writ petition filed by respondent-workman.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that continuous service rendered by the workman for 1068 days was not in dispute. He was illegally terminated on 30.08.1988 without complying the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the ID Act. He further submits that Learned Labour Court has rightly held that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days before termination of his service and the violation of Section 25F of the ID Act stood established. He also submits that once the workman was found to have worked for 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months before the termination of his service, he would be entitled to the statutory protection u/s 25F of the ID Act. The workman was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. Finally, he prays for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-management and allowing the second writ petition filed by workman.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that both these writ petitions are misconceived and liable to be dismissed for more than one following reasons.

A bare perusal of Annexure P-2 placed on record by the petitioner-management would show that right from 14.06.1985 till 28.08.1988, workman had been continuing in service with notional breaks in between for which he cannot be held responsible. Admittedly, when his services were terminated on 30.08.1988, he had already completed continuous service for more than 240 days during the preceding 12 calendar months. In this view of the matter, the Learned Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent-workman was entitled for compensation only and not for reinstatement because work was no more available after 30.08.1988. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that Learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned award and the same deserves to be upheld.

So far as relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages was concerned, workman was not entitled because of the given fact situation of the present case. Firstly, the workman has less than three years of service to his credit. Secondly, work was no more available with the management after termination of his service. In such a situation, the Learned Labour Court rightly moulded the relief at the time of passing the impugned award directing the petitioner-management to pay an amount of Rs. 16,200/- to workman as compensation. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the award passed by Learned Labour Court was factually correct as well as legally justified and the same deserves to be upheld.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that in given fact situation of the case discussed hereinabove, both these writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

However, since the workman was held entitled for amount of Rs. 16,200/- vide impugned award dated 28.05.1993, he will be entitled for the said amount along with interest @ 12% per annum because the petitioner-management had been using that amount during this period.

Let the amount of Rs. 16,200/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 12.05.1993, i.e. the date of impugned award till the actual date of payment, be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued as hereinabove, both these writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.