Allowed

Fazilka Central Coop. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2011CWP/10602/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court allowed the petitioner bank's writ petition against the Labour Court's direction reinstating a workman. The court held that reinstatement is unjustified after 22 years of absence and treated Section 17-B benefits during pendency as adequate compensation for termination.

What did the court decide?

Labour Court award set aside; writ petition allowed without requiring payment of Section 17-B benefits after the order date.

Fazilka Central Coop. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.10602 of 1990

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10602 of 1990

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: April 19, 2011

¶6

THE FAZILKA CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD. ...PETITIONER FAZILA THROUGH ITS MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not? No

¶13

Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No

¶14

PRESENT: MR. INDERJIT SINGH SIDHU, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.

¶15

MR. K.S. SIVIA, DAG, PUNJAB.

¶16

K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL)

¶17

The Management is in challenge before this Court against the direction for reinstatement of a workman who claimed that he had been terminated from service without following the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had rejected the contention in defence by holding that although the workman had not completed 240 days, the management had been deliberately creating breaks in service to disentitle the workman from completing 240 days of service. The Labour Court had held that it was the result of unfair trade practice and further held that he was entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court rejected the plea in defence that reference sought by the workman nearly 7 years after termination was barred by limitation.

¶18

Though the award cannot be found fault with, I do not find that

¶19

CWP No.10602 of 1990

¶20

-2-

¶21

there will be any justice in directing reinstatement of a Clerk in Bank who has been out of service for 22 years and who had not completed even 240 days of service at the relevant time when the termination in fact is effected. The workman had the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the entire period of pendency of the proceedings. That itself in my view could be taken as appropriate compensation for termination of service without reference to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶22

The award of the Labour Court is under the circumstances set aside and the writ petition is allowed. 4. Needless to state that it shall not become necessary for the management to pay any benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act after the date of this order.

¶23

April 19, 2011 Gulati

¶24

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE

Fazilka Central Coop. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fazilka Central Coop. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karam Chand and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mukhtiar Mohd. @ Mohd. Mukhtiar Vs Sunita R Ani

Doaba Roadways,Ltdhoshiarpur Vs State of Punjab

Gram Panchayat Vill Tong Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Sharma& Others Vs State of Punjabthroug Its Secy

Santosh Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Punjab