AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—By I this order I will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 3811 and 14720 of 1994. For the sake of convenience, brief facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 3811 of 1994. The award of the Labour Court Annexure P-2 has been challenged both by the workman and the State.
The petitioner/workman was working as a Beldar/Mortar Mate with the respondent/State since 1.1.1983 and his services were terminated with effect from 1.10.1987. He claimed a reference that his services had been retrenched/terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which were attracted considering the fact that he had completed 4 years of service with the respondents. Initially, the reference claimed was disposed of by an ex parte order in the absence of the respondent/State to contest the claim, but subsequently, the said award was set aside.
The State then took up a plea that that the petitioner had worked with them for 1656 days as Beldar/Mortor Mate on daily wages and work-charge basis with a break. The termination of his services with effect from 30.9.1987 was not contested. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner indeed worked from 1.1.1983 to 30.9.1987 and it further concluded that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of services to be entitled to the benefits of the Act, but it also held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with and thus, answered the reference in favour of the workman, but declined the plea of reinstatement and instead, ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,800/- calculated as remuneration for a period of 18 months at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman contends that once the retrenchment of the petitioner had been held to be bad in the eyes of law, reinstatement ought to have been an automatic consequence and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified on this count.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the impugned award granting compensation to the petitioner/workman is also erroneous and in fact, the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Act.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The plea of the respondent/State that the petitioner is not a workman is not borne out from any record. The respondent/State has conceded that the petitioner has worked for 1656 days, but have stated that the said period was interrupted with breaks. No such material has been shown to this Court which would justify such a stand. In this eventuality, the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had put in more than 240 days of service and was entitled to the protection under the Act, cannot be faulted with.
Similarly, in the absence of any material that would show that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with, the finding recorded by the Labour Court on this count also cannot be faulted with.
This leaves the Court to evaluate the contention as to whether the petitioner/workman was entitled to an automatic reinstatement or whether the compensation awarded to the workman was just and proper?
In the considered opinion of this Court, considering the fact that the petitioner/workman had put in a short term of employment with the respondents, would not entail an automatic reinstatement in service, more particularly, when the pendency of the petition and the efflux of time has only added to the justification of not reinstating the petitioner in service.
However, the Court also feels that the compensation awarded to the petitioner is inadequate, as for the period of 4 years that he has put in, he has merely been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,800/-.
This Court in C.W.P. No. 13469 of 2005 titled State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Division No. 2 Sonepat v. Ishwar Singh, decided on 2.4.2008, has held that just compensation in the absence of any specific parameters can be pegged down to Rs. 20,000/- for every completed year of service.
Adopting the same parameters, the amount of 4 years would come to Rs. 80,000/- but since there is no data available regarding the continuous employment of the petitioner, and the breaks given to him in the service, the ends of justice would be met if the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded. With the aforesaid modification, both the petitions are disposed of and the award of the Labour Court Annexure P-2 is modified to the aforesaid extent.