The High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal award regarding a workman retrenched without statutory compliance. While affirming the right to reinstatement, the Court denied back wages as the workman was gainfully employed during the absence period.
Reinstatement ordered; back wages denied.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.WP No. 10187 of 2011 . [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th August, 2011 .
Divisional Forest Officer, Railway Road, Karnal
Petitioner through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
Versus
Haridutt & Anr. Respondents through Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]
This writ petition is directed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Railway Road, Karnal against the award dated 04.11.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat.
Notice of motion was issued only on the question as to whether the respondent – Workman is entitled to be re-instated or he is entitled to compensation only.
Having regard to the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma v Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat, 2010[0] AIJEL-SC, 48231 and Ramesh Kumar v State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC, 683 , there can be no escape but to hold that since the Workman was retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he is entitled to be re-instated on the same terms and conditions on which he was employed. However, there appears to be no justification for the Labour Court to award back wages
inasmuch as during the period when the Workman was out of service, he can be said to be gainfully employed.
For the reasons above-stated, this writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 04.11.2010 is modified to the extent that the Workman shall not be entitled to any back wages. However, he shall be re-instated in service on the same terms and conditions on which he was employed.
Disposed of. Dasti .
August 04, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a workman retrenched without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is entitled to reinstatement.
Whether a retrenched workman is entitled to back wages if he was gainfully employed during the period of retrenchment.
Whether the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court granting back wages should be modified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anoop Sharma v. Executive EngineerFollowed¶14
Anoop Sharma v Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat, 2010[0] AIJEL-SC, 48231
Ramesh Kumar v. State of HaryanaFollowed¶14
Ramesh Kumar v State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC, 683 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Divisional Forest Officer, Railway Road, Karnal
Haridutt & Anr.
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
