Quashed

Project Director, Govt. Livestock Farm v. Narender Kumar and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2008CWP/5830/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an award reinstating a workman. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that reinstatement violates Articles 14 and 16 if the employee was not appointed according to rules, as such termination is not retrenchment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is quashed.

Project Director, Govt. Livestock… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.5830 of 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No.5830 of 2007

¶5

Date of decision: 7^th May, 2008

¶6

The Project Director, Govt. Livestock Farm, Sector 3, Barwala Road, Hisar (now Deputy Director, State Cattle Breeding Project, Sector 3, Barwala Road, Hisar).

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Narender Kumar and another

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶12

Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General Haryana, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

¶14

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.

¶15

Present writ petition has been filed by the Project Director, Govt. Livestock Farm, Sector 3, Barwala Road, Hisar (now Deputy Director, State Cattle Breeding Project, Sector 3, Barwala Road, Hisar against Narender Kumar son of Dharam Singh and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar praying for quashing the impugned award (Annexure P-8) dated 11.07.2006 whereby Narender Kumar (workman) has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service and other consequential benefits including 25 per cent back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice dated 27.01.1998 till the date of publication of the award and full wages thereafter till reinstatement.

¶16

As per demand notice (Annexure P-1) issued by the workman, he was employed as a helper/ worker on daily wages basis and he

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.5830 of 2007

¶18

¶19

performed his duties from September 1996 to November 1996 and from January 1997 to March 1997 in the establishment of Deputy Director, Sheep Breeding Farm, Hisar and thereafter, from June 1997 to July 1997 with Project Director, Government Livestock Farm, Sector 3, Barwala Road, Hisar, which also fall under the same management. In the claim statement (Annexure P-5), it was stated that both the Sheep Breeding Farm and Government Livestock Farm are different institutions and service rendered in both cannot be counted together for computation of 240 days. The learned Labour Court, relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court, held that the service rendered in both institutions, which are under the same management, can be counted, and held that hence workman has completed 240 days in 12 months preceding his termination. It has been further held that there has been violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act therefore, petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed.

¶20

During the course of arguments, it has been stated that the workman was not appointed as per rules and regulations but was a contractual employee on daily wages basis and termination of his service did not amount to retrenchment. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others

¶21

v. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1.

¶22

Learned counsel for the workman submitted that termination of his services being illegal, the workman was entitled to full back wages. The management has neither implemented the award so far nor has challenged the same for more than one year.

¶23

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶24

We find that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot be treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the

¶25

Civil Writ Petition No.5830 of 2007

¶26

¶27

Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533 , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen (2007) 1 SCC 408 , Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another (2006) 6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others (2007) 5 SCC 755 , it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman had been appointed by following rules and regulations.

¶28

In view of the above, we allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned award.

¶29

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶30

[ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE

¶31

7^th May, 2008 rps

Project Director, Govt. Livestock Farm v. Narender Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Project Director, Govt. Livestock Farm v. Narender Kumar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P S E B Vs Regional Labour Commissioner and Ors.

Dayal Rastogi College of Education Vs State of Hry and Anr.

Surinder Syal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Association of Punjab Self Financed Vs State of Punjab

P.S.E.B. Vs Controlling Authority and Ors.

Sonia Chhrbra Vs Pb Technical Uni and Anors