AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Saron, J.—The letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant/workman aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 24.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 13618 of 2010, whereby his petition against the award dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, has been allowed to the extent of awarding him Rs. 1,00,000/- only as compensation in lieu of reinstating him in service. The appellant assails the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent reinstatement in service and consequential benefits have been declined.
Along with the appeal, CM No. 1222 of 2015 has been filed seeking condonation of 8 days'' delay in filing the appeal, besides, CM No. 1223 of 2015 has been filed, seeking condonation of 242 days'' delay in refiling the appeal.
The appellant worked as a Beldar with the respondent/department of PWD (Public Health) R.W.D. Division, Barnala for the period from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997. According to him his services were illegally terminated by the respondent-department on 1.10.1997 without serving any notice on him. At the time of termination of his services, he was getting monthly wages of Rs. 1953/-. His juniors were retained in service while he was removed from service. It is alleged that subsequently fresh recruitments were also made but the workman remained unemployed. A demand notice dated 7.2.19998 was served by him. In view of the infraction of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''Act'' - for short), the workman claimed re-instatement in service with full back wages by raising an industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation process, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Patiala under Section 10 of the Act on 23.9.1999. The reference was to the effect as to whether the services of the workman Karam Singh (appellant) were terminated in a proper and justified manner by the management. If not so, what was the workman entitled to?
The respondent-department contested the claim of the appellant and stated that his appointment was on daily wages for execution of a particular work, besides, he had not completed 240 days of service in any calendar year. According to the respondents, the workman had himself left the job. It is alleged that his services were terminated on 1.9.1997 and not on 1.10.1997.
The learned Industrial Tribunal, Patiala vide its award dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) decided the issue whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the management. After considering the matter, it was held that the workman had been able to prove that he had completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year prior to 30.9.1997. It was held to be proved that the appellant had worked in the respondent-department from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997. Besides, the services of the appellant were terminated by the respondent-department on 1.10.1997 in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was held that the respondents had failed to prove that the workman had himself left the job. Accordingly, it could be easily inferred that he was retrenched on 1.10.1997 and no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Non compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, it was held, may be a ground to grant the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service in favour of the retrenched workman. The same, however, would not mean that such relief was to be granted automatically or as a matter of course. Reliance in this regard was placed on the case, Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court modified the award by directing that the workman therein was to be compensated by payment of Rs. 25,000/- instead of re-instatement with back wages. In the present case it was accordingly held that the services of the workman were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Act and the reference had remained pending for 10 years. The interest of justice shall be sub served if compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was directed to be paid to the workman. Accordingly, the issue was decided and the appellant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
Aggrieved with the award dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, the appellant filed CWP No. 13618 of 2010 in this Court. The learned Single Judge after placing reliance on Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, held that the nature of employment, the period for which the employee worked, are to be taken into consideration and reinstatement is not the only relief to be given in each case and in lieu of that adequate compensation could be granted. It was held that the appellant had worked only for one year, seven months at the relevant point of time and thereafter, a period of 17 years had lapsed since the relationship of employer and employee were severed. Therefore, it was considered to be inappropriate to direct reinstatement and compensation should be adequate relief to be granted in such circumstances. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. one lakh was granted as compensation to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement. The said amount, it was ordered, would be paid within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which, it would carry interest @ 9% per annum.
The appellant aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that reinstatement in service and consequential benefits have been declined has filed the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana and another, Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 decided on 13.1.2015. On the strength of the said judgment, it is contended that the appellant is liable to be reinstated in service.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
The reinstatement in service of a workman who has been retrenched from service and where there has been infringement or infraction of the provisions of the Act, has now been held to be not automatic or as a matter of course. Various other factors are to be taken into consideration for the purposes of reinstatement. In the present case, the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, in terms of its award dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-3) and also the learned Single Judge in terms of his order dated 24.3.2014, did not consider reinstatement to be adequate after lapse of a period of 17 years when relationship of employer and employee had been severed. In Jasmer Singh''s case (supra), which is pressed by learned counsel for the appellant in support of the claim of the workman for reinstatement in service, no doubt reinstatement in service was ordered. In the said case the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, in terms of its award had set aside the order of termination passed against the workman and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was assailed by the employer by way of a writ petition in this Court. The Supreme Court observed that the award had been challenged by the employer urging untenable contentions and that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, which was referred to in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, . A reference was also made to the decision in the case of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), to hold that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in exercise of their supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in setting aside the finding of fact recorded on the facts based on the pleadings and evidence on record. In view of the case law referred to in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the setting aside of the award of the Industrial Tribunal by the learned Single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench was held to be vitiated in law as the same was contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to therein. Therefore, it was in the facts and circumstances of the said case where the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal had ordered reinstatement in service of the workmen in the said case, which was held to be improper by this Court, that the Supreme Court restored the award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.
In the present case, the learned Industrial Tribunal did not consider it appropriate in the facts and circumstances to reinstate the appellant/workman in service. The learned Industrial Tribunal rather held that the reference had remained pending for more than ten years and the interest of justice would be subserved if compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid to the workmen by the respondent-department. The workmen was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in place of reinstatement with full back wages. The learned Industrial Tribunal placed reliance on the case, Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mamni (supra) wherein an ad-hoc appointee in a temporary post had completed the length of service postulated in Section 25-F of the Act. The services of the workman was terminated without complying with the conditions laid down in the section. About fourteen long years had lapsed after termination. In such circumstances, it was held that even if the appointee was reinstated, she could not be regularised. Moreover, since there was no material on record to show that she had not been working during that period, instead of re-instatement with full back wages, compensation quantified at Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid.
The learned Single Judge in the present case has upheld the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal and enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. one lakh by holding that the workmen had worked only for one year, seven months at the relevant point of time i.e. from 1.2.1996 to 30.9.1997 and that a period of 17 years had lapsed since the relationship of employer and employee was severed. It is not a case where the award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal had been set aside. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Jasmer Singh''s case (supra) would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Besides, each case is to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. There can be no strait jacket formula in this regard. At this stage, after a lapse of more than 18 years, it would be quite iniquitous and improper to order reinstatement of the appellant, especially when the learned Single Judge has enhanced the amount of compensation payable to him from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. one lakh.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The question of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal in the circumstances are only academic.
Accordingly, the appeal and the miscellaneous applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are dismissed.