The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The applicant contested an order awarding compensation for unfair labor practice rather than reinstatement. The Court found no case for interference in the compensation award's absence of a reinstatement claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Writ Petition No.13746 of 2010 : 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
The Union of India & others
Vs.
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh & another
Present: Mr.S.K.S.Taank, Advocate, for the petitioners.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This petition filed by the Union of India would reflect sorry state of affairs. Union of India can be expected to be a model employer, but is exploiting the poor workers by employing them with notional breaks. The following details of appointment and termination, as would reveal from the list of dates and events, would in itself be a proof enough of highhandedness and unfair labour practice:-
“21/02/2003 to 18/03/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 07/02/2003). 20/03/2003 to 08/04/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 18/03/2003 (Terminated vide letter dated 03/04/2003) 10/04/2003 to 07/05/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 10/04/2003
(Terminated vide letter dated 07/05/2003) 09/05/2003 to 04/06/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 07/05/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 04/06/2003) 06/06/2003 to 02/07/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 04/06/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 04/06/03)
Civil Writ Petition No.13746 of 2010 : 2 :
04/07/2003 to 01/08/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 02/07/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 01/08/03) 04/08/2003 to 03/09/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 01/08/2003 (Terminated vide letter dated 03/09/03) 05/09/2003 to 29/09/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 03/09/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 29/09/03) 01/10/2003 to 31/10/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 29/09/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 31/10/03) 03/11/2003 to 28/11/2003 (Appointed vide letter dated 31/10/03 (Terminated vide letter dated 28/11/03). Vide Annexure P-2 (Colly), the appointment orders were issued, vide Annexure P-3 (Colly) the Respondent No. was terminated and vide annexure P-4 (Colly) the respondent No.2 submitted his joining reports”.
Such practice can but be termed as unfair labour practice. That Union of India, is doing so would be rather a sorry state of affairs. Labour Court has rightly referred to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, AIR 2006 SCW 2979 to highlight that the action is an unfair labour practice:-
“The respondent was appointed from time to time. Her services used to be terminated on the expiry of 89 days on regular basis. However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term. Such an action on the part of the Appellant cannot be said to be bonafide. The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the
Civil Writ Petition No.13746 of 2010 : 3 :
appellant herein stating:-
It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid plea raised at the hands of the management on account of the fact that the factual position, which has not been disputed reveals that the respondent-workman was repeatedly engaged on 89 days basis. It is therefore, clear that the intention of the management was not to engage the respondent workman for a specified period, as alleged, but was to defeat the rights available to him under Section 25-F of the Act. The aforesaid practice at the hands of the petitioner-management to employ the workman repeatedly after notional break, clearly falls within the ambit and scope of unfair labour practice.”
Ordinarily, this should have resulted in reinstatement of the respondent. Having termed the action of the petitioners to be unfair labour practice, the necessary consequences should have been allowed to follow. The court opted for awarding compensation of ` 75,000/- instead. Since there is no claim for reinstatement made, this aspect need not be touched further. However, this order may not stand in the way of the respondent, if he wish to challenge the award of compensation and instead would wish to seek reinstatement. The compensation also appears to be inadequate. No case for interference, thus, is made out.
The writ petition is dismissed.
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
August 05, 2010 ramesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the practice of appointing workers repeatedly with notional breaks constitutes unfair labor practice.
Whether the High Court should intervene to grant reinstatement instead of compensation awarded by the Labour Court.
Whether the respondent has made out a case for interference by the High Court in the lower court's award.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, AIR 2006 SCW 2979Referred¶14
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni, AIR 2006 SCW 2979 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Union of India & others
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh & another
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
