Dismissed

Mohinder Puri v. P.O., Labour Court and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2011CWP/3162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking reinstatement, upholding the Labour Court's award that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement protection due to less than 240 days of service. The Court additionally dismissed the petition on limitation grounds due to the eight-year lapse since the award.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the petitioner's termination and rejecting the claim for reinstatement.

Mohinder Puri Vs P.O., Labour Court… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.3162 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.3162 of 2012 Date of Decision: 07.05.2012

Mohinder Puri

..... Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. C.P. Tiwana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶15

The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Mate to serve the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer Bhakra Water Services (Mechanical), Kaithal – respondent No.2. His services were terminated on 30.09.1993. After 16 years he served a demand notice on the respondent – Management claiming reinstatement on the strength that persons junior to him were retained in service; fresh workers were deputed, and no valid retrenchment procedure was followed in causing his termination. The petitioner thereafter worked intermittently till 1998 in different sub divisions for flood work. The last termination is said to have occurred on December 22, 1998. The industrial reference was made in 2000. 2. The finding of the Labour Court is that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service during the preceding 12 months i.e. from January 1998 to December 1998 and, therefore, compliance of Section 25-F

¶16

CWP No.3162 of 2012

¶17

-2-

¶18

was not required as the petitioner had not gained protection of industrial rights under the Act. The Labour Court also found that there was no violation of Section 25(G) and (H) through which possibly a workman could re-enter despite non-completion of 240 days.

¶19

In this grim scenario of facts, it is not possible to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, which is upheld. There would be another independent reason for the dismissal of this writ petition inasmuch as the impugned award was passed on 20.05.2002 and it was sought to be challenged in the present petition which was filed on 17.01.2012 and then re-filed on 17.02.2012. It would be wholly unfair to interfere after lapse of eight years of the award given that the employer is a department of State Government.

¶20

4. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 07.05.2012 JUDGE manju

Mohinder Puri v. P.O., Labour Court and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Puri v. P.O., Labour Court and Others

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

Avinash Aggarwal Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Adviser to the Admn. Cum Chief Vigilance Officer Vs D.C. Cum District Collector & Anr.

Shifali Kaul Vs Guru Nanak Dev University

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and Ors.