This writ petition challenged the Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting workmen's claim for retrospective regularization. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that services were regularized in 1984, applying Supreme Court precedent regarding retrenchment relief.
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.
#1#
C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991
Date of decision: 7.2.2011
Munshi Ram and others
….Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Jaswant Singh, J
By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, petitioners-workmen, who are 41 in number, have impugned the award dated 6.9.1990 (P.4) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “the ld. Tribunal”) whereby their claim for retrospective regularization has been rejected.
Petitioners-workmen while working in the Verka Workshop of the Punjab State Electricity Board-respondents raised an industrial dispute and the Government of Punjab while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947) vide Notification dated 11.11.1988 made a reference, which reads as under:
“Whether the services of the workmen whose names are mentioned in Annexure A should be regularised w.e.f the date mentioned against each workman? If so, to what relief they are entitled to?”
C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 #2#
The petitioner-workmen submitted in their demand notice dated 14.8.1986 (P.1) that they were working in the Verka Workshop, Batala Road, Amritsar continuously for several years and their particulars are given in Annexure-A annexed with the demand notice, however, they are being described as work charged employees to circumvent their lawful claim. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioners were regularized with effect from the dates mentioned in column No.6 of Annexure-A but no benefit of their continuous long service has been granted. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust and unconstitutional. In these circumstances, the petitioners claimed that they should be granted the benefit of continuous service with effect from their initial appointment including bonus, grade increments, promotion and pension etc. In support of their claim, the petitioners filed affidavit dated 16.9.1989 (P.2) of one of the workmen namely, Basant Ram son of Sh. Kirpa Ram and reiterated the claim raised in the demand notice.
On the other hand, respondents refuted the claim of the petitioners-workmen by filing an affidavit (P.3) of Engineer N.S. Samra, Executive Engineer, Central Workshop, PSEB Verka.
On the pleadings of both the parties, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:
After hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of all the workmen have been regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984 and therefore, no benefit of retrospective regularization on completion of five years service can be granted to the
C.W.P.No.9732 of 1991 #3#
petitioners and as such rejected their claim vide the impugned award dated 6.9.1990. Hence the present petition.
At the time of hearing, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners whereas Sh. S.S. Siao, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the claim of the petitioners has rightly been rejected by the learned Tribunal.
This is the conceded position as observed by learned Tribunal under Issue No.1 that services of all the petitioners have been regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984. It has come in evidence of respondents in the statement of MW1 that previously the numbers of sanctioned regular posts were not sufficient and therefore, the petitioners along with others were employed on work charged basis and when the regular posts were increased, the services of the petitioners along with others were regularized vide order dated 29.2.1984 and all the petitioners stand regularized.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that services of all the petitioners have been regularized way back in 1984 and in view of the law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Secretary, State of
Karnatka v. Smt Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, no interference in the impugned award dated 6.9.1990 (P.4) while declining the claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is warranted.
Dismissed.
February 07, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting retrospective regularization claims.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefits of continuous service from their initial appointment date.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma DeviApplied¶28
Secretary, State of Karnatka v. Smt Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Munshi Ram and others
Punjab State Electricity Board
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
