Dismissed

Sham Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2008CWP/1367/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upon the condition that the Government considers the petitioners' claim for pay protection and continuity of service within three months. Petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Court if relief is denied post-reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court if relief of pay protection and continuity of service is denied after Government re-consideration.

Sham Lal and Ors. Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 1367 of 2004

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 1367 of 2004

¶5

Date of Decision: 11.12.2008

Sham Lal and Others

…Petitioners

Versus

The State of Haryana and Others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Jayender Singh Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶14

Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.5.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

Mr. Narender Hooda has stated that all workmen of the respondent No.5 – Haryana Minor Irrigation (Tube-well) Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), who have been retrenched, are entitled to retrenchment compensation. If retrenchment compensation has not been paid, same shall be paid to the workmen as and when they approach the Corporation. He further states that those employees, who were above the age of 55 years, subject to filing of their affidavits in the proforma circulated by the Corporation, are entitled to

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No. 1367 of 2004

¶18

¶19

Rs.1.00 lac as compensation. Mr.Hooda has stated that almost all the employees have been paid the compensation. Those who have not received the same, can approach the Corporation. He has further stated that those employees, who were declared surplus and died, they are entitled to be given Rs.2.50 lacs as compensation. In case any petitioner has died, his family shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2.50 lacs. Mr.Hooda further stated that as per the policy of 2006 and 2007, an effort is being made for the adjustment/ absorption of the employees, who were less than 55 years of age, according to that policy.

¶20

Mr. Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate, for Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners states that in case the Corporation adheres to the submissions made by Mr.Hooda, he has no grievance. He further states that the employees are agitating about their pay protection and continuity of service.

¶21

Mr.Jayender Singh Chandail, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has stated that claim of the employees regarding pay protection and continuity of service was considered and rejected.

¶22

Mr.Bhatti has stated that he has reliable information that the Government is re-considering the relief of pay protection and continuity of service. In case relief of pay protection and continuity of service is under the active consideration of the Government, same shall be decided within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

Needless to say, the employees shall be entitled to pay protection and continuity of service, if the same is legally permissible. In case, on re-consideration, petitioners are denied pay protection and continuity of service, they shall be at liberty to approach the Court of law,

¶24

Civil Writ Petition No. 1367 of 2004 3

¶25

in accordance with provisions of law.

¶26

In view of the submissions made above, as prayed, present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.

¶27

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶28

December 11, 2008 “ DK ”

Sham Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sham Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inder Pal Vs Gopal Krishan

Manjit Singh Vs Gopal Krishan

Jai Parkash Vs Gopal Krishan

Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs Panna Lal

Khazan Singh and Ors. Vs Prithvi Singh Sharma

K.K.Jhamb Vs State of Haryana & Ors.