Dismissed

State of Haryana v. Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Nov 2011LPA/2001/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order reinstating a workman-respondent by a Labour Court. The Court held that termination for alleged irregularities without a charge sheet or inquiry was penal and unsustainable. Emphasized non-availability of Section 11-A remedy in writ context. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Award of Labour Court reinstating workwoman-respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages upheld.

State of Haryana Vs Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 2001 of 2011

¶2

Date of Decision: November 1, 2011

State of Haryana

…Appellant

Versus

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur and another

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶10

Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the appellant.

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

M.M. KUMAR, Acg.C.J.

¶14

The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, preferred by the State of Haryana, is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge endorsing the view taken by the Labour Court in its award dated 10.1.2011. According to the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge the workman-respondent No. 1 Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur was working as an Anganwadi Worker since 15.11.1987 and her services were terminated on 28.6.2007 on the basis of allegation of embezzlement and misuse of amount of Self Help Group. No charge sheet was issued nor any inquiry was held. The Labour Court reinstated her in service with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

¶15

The learned Single Judge rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant State that the workmanrespondent No. 1 was being paid honorarium and there was no

¶16

LPA No. 2001 of 2011

¶17

¶18

requirement of serving of any charge sheet before terminating her services. It has, however, been noticed that the workmanrespondent No. 1 had admitted some irregularities while withdrawing the cash directly for the purposes of preparing the meal which was contrary to the instructions and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant State.

¶19

We have heard the learned State counsel at a considerable length. It is well settled that an order of termination which casts stigma on a workman would ex facie be considered as penal. The same cannot be sustained without holding a regular departmental inquiry, which has not been done in the present case. The appellant State has not even availed the remedy before the Labour Court by resorting to the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman-respondent No. 1 with 50% back wages has been rightly upheld. We find no illegality nor any such argument has been raised which may warrant interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.

¶20

(M.M. KUMAR)

¶21

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶23

November 1, 2011 Pkapoor

State of Haryana v. Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr.

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

Ascons (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Goyal Estate and Prom. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurmukh Singh and Anr. Vs Land Acquisition Collector/Officer and Anr.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rameshwar Vs the Director, Pgi and Anr.

Jagan Nath Vs State of Hy.