Dismissed

Senior Superintdent of Post Offices, Ludhiana v. Baljit Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2011LPA/715/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a Labour Court award, the Letters Patent Bench examined the illegality of termination under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that the appellant could not seek reinstatement but affirmed the award of compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the award of compensation without reinstatement.

Senior Superintdent of Post Offices… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 715 of 2011

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 715 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: December 16, 2011

¶6

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Post, Post Office, Ludhiana

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Baljit Singh .Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported

¶15

in the Digest?

¶16

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶17

The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 03.03.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court dated 22.07.2010. The Labour Court has held in favour of the workman that the Potal Department is an industry and there was relationship of an employer and employee between the management and the workman. It has further been held under Issue No.2 that the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act') and termination of services of the workman is retrenchment within the meaning of

¶18

LPA No. 715 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

Section 2(oo) of the Act and that the workman-appellant has completed more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. As the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with, the termination was held illegal. However, relief claimed by the workman for reinstatement and regularisation of his services, has been declined on the ground that he was not recruited through employment exchange and therefore, could not have been granted the benefit of regularisation. Accordingly, the Labour Court awarded a lump sum compensation of ` 50,000/-.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that no interference of the Letters Patent Bench would be warranted because once there is violation of Section 25F of the Act then there is no escape from the conclusion that the workmanappellant was not entitled to relief. However, the relief has been moulded on the ground that the workman-appellant was not recruited through a valid source i.e. employment exchange. A sum of ` 50,000/- in the facts and circumstances of this case, awarded to the workman-appellant is wholly justified. The appeal does not merit admission.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶23

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶24

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶25

December 16, 2011 Atul

Senior Superintdent of Post Offices, Ludhiana v. Baljit Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senior Superintdent of Post Offices, Ludhiana v. Baljit Singh 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

Malwinderjit Sngh Waraich Vs UOI

Malwinder Jit Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Jitender Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sadhu Singh Vs the District Judge,Rupnagar etc.

M/S Tibrewala Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana Financial Corpn. and Ors.

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.