Krishan Kumar vs Chief Engineer, PWD (Public Health), Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P5) whereby the Labour Court, Hisar, while holding that there was non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ''Act''), awarded only a sum of Rs. 12000/- as compensation to the petitioner-workman for the service of 3 years, who was working as a daily wager.

In the demand notice dated 21.08.2005 (Annexure P1), the grouse of the petitioner was that he was employed on daily wages as Beldar in March, 2000 and had worked till March, 2003. No notice, notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was paid and there was violation of Section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act. On the same lines, the claim statement was filed and the matter was referred to the Labour Court.

The defence taken by the respondent-Management was that the workman was never engaged and appointed and a concocted story had been put forward.

In support of his case, the workman appeared as WW1 whereas he examined Surjan Singh as WW2 and Jagdish Chander as WW3. The record was also summoned which was brought by Ravinder Singh, Clerk in the form of muster-rolls issue register. The log book was, however, not brought. The Labour Court noticed that the workman had moved an application for summoning the concerned Clerk along with the relevant record, showing his attendance and accordingly, held that an adverse inference had to be drawn against the respondent as the evidence led by the workman was proved by the co-workers, Surjit Singh and Jagdish Singh, who deposed in his favour. However, relief of reinstatement was denied and a sum of Rs. 12000/- was awarded as compensation.

The award has not been challenged by the Department and has become final and therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court have become final Inter Se the parties. The only issue which now has to be considered is whether the amount of Rs. 12000/- is reasonable and just compensation for a daily wager or whether the benefit of reinstatement should be granted. The Apex Court in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, has, while taking into consideration various judgments passed by the Apex Court, held that the mode, manner and nature of appointment, the length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute are necessary aspects, which are to be considered by the Court, while directing payment of compensation. The principles have been laid down as under:

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.

Keeping in view the above said principle, the amount of compensation has to be assessed. In the present case, the demand notice was raised only 2 years later and the petitioner and the petitioner only worked for a period of 3 years. More than a decade has gone by since his services were termination and the relationship of employer-employee came to an end. At this point of time, it would not be justified to direct reinstatement and the workman can be duly compensated by directing payment of reasonable amount, over and above what has been granted by the Labour Court, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is way to paltry.

In Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, , a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the workman who had worked from 31.12.1991 to 31.03.1994 and similarly, in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, , a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was ordered to be paid where irregular appointment had been made and the workman had only worked for 6 months. In Telecom District Manager and Others Vs. Keshab Deb, , a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation by setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal which had set aside the order of termination. The said order of the Tribunal had been upheld by the Guwahati High Court.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana through Executive Engineer (PWD), Public Health Division No. 2, Sonipat Vs. Ishwar Singh & another 2008(3) S.C.T. 788 held that compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for each completed year of service by the workman was justified in cases of daily wage employees. The Apex Court in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, , denied the relief of reinstatement to the workers who had worked on daily wages in the year 1995-96 and held that monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In the present case also, as noticed above, the workman was only working as a daily wager and therefore, the applicability of the said judgment would apply on all four squares. Thereafter, in Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty, , the workman had been reinstated by the High Court and it was noticed that he had worked for about 7 years, intermittently, from 1978 to 1985, about 25 years back and a sum of Rs. 1 lac was awarded as compensation by the Apex Court. The said view has been followed by the Apex Court in B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal, wherein the same view has been reiterated and it has been held that if there is victimisation and unfair labour practice and a person who is employed on daily wage basis, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead, adequate compensation should be given. Relevant observation read as under:

It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

In view of the above discussion, the petitioner-workman who had worked for a period of 3 years is awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in total, as just and adequate compensation. The award dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P5) is, accordingly, modified and the workman is held entitled for the said amount which shall be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.

Writ petition is allowed in the above stated terms.