Dismissed

Technical Services Union Regd. v. Po Industrial Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jan 2012CWP/4680/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Industrial Tribunal award denying reinstatement after retrenchment compensation was tendered but rejected. The single-judge High Court dismissed the plea, relying on supervisory jurisdiction principles.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No retrenchment compensation payment order requires reconsideration.

Technical Services Union Regd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.4680 of 1994

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.4680 of 1994 Date of Decision: 03.01.2012

¶5

Technical Services Union Regd.No.P.49

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶16

The challenge in this writ petition is to the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 29.10.1993 (Annexure P-11) in reference No.73 of 1990. The Labour Court has denied reinstatement and ordered the management to pay to the workmen the retrenchment compensation which was offered to them as a compensation for retrenchment but was not accepted by them at the time of retrenchment.

¶17

It is the case of the workmen that they had put in service as daily rated workers for about two years when their services were brought to an end on 28.12.1989 without following the procedure laid down under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'); and that the management had violated Sections 25-G & H of the Act as juniors had been retained in

¶18

CWP No.4680 of 1994

¶19

-2-

¶20

service.

¶21

It was the defence of the management that due notice of retrenchment had been given to the workmen vide memo dated 26.12.1989 (Annexure P-12) and a cheque of Rs.1386/- was attached with the notice and duly tendered in lieu of retrenchment compensation as well as one month's pay towards notice period. In the notice, it was also mentioned that in case there is any deficiency it may be brought to the notice of the office otherwise it would be presumed that the amount stands accepted. It has come in the cross examination of MW1 Jaswant Singh Sidhu, Assistant Executive Engineer that retrenchment compensation was tendered by bank cheques to the workmen on the same date.

¶22

In so far as Sections 25-G&H are concerned, it was not denied that three persons juniors to the workmen involved in the present reference were retained but that was under Court orders. In Para 16 of the writ petition, on the issue of retention of juniors, the petitioner has averred as follows:-

¶23

"16. That Annexure P.1 clearly shows total number of days on which the workmen had worked with the respondents. The same has not been denied by the respondents in the written statement. However, in Exh WW1 the workmen who are far junior to the workmen whose services have been terminated have been retained in service. The same is clear from Exh./Annexure P.10 the cross-examination of Sh. Jaswant Singh. The only reason given is that they have been taken in service under the court orders. It is respectfully submitted that the workmen had put in more than 500 days of service whereas the employees retained in Annexure P.5 have not put in even 400 days of service. Thus the juniors to the workmen have been retained in service which was

¶24

CWP No.4680 of 1994

¶25

-3-

¶26

in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This aspect has not been dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh had committed an illegality in passing the award annexure P.11."

¶27

On notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and filed a written statement in which the contents of Para 16 have been denied. This stand is a reiteration of the stand before the labour Court and considered by it. The averments read as follows:-

¶28

"16. In reply to this Paragraph, it is submitted that the Petitioners' allegation is wrong and denied. The Respondents effected retrenchment in a lot and not even a single Workman junior to the petitioners was retained in service. Some of the Workmen approached the Court and it was under the Court's orders that they were admitted back into employment. So far as Respondents are concerned, they have not committed any illegality. The Petitioners were retrenched after compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and in a legal manner. That being so, their retrenchment should be held to be justified. (underlined for emphasis)

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

It is not possible to accept the plea of Mr. Harit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that any junior had been retained other than those protected by Court orders. In this case there was refusal to receive retrenchment compensation duly tendered. There was substantial compliance of the law of retrenchment.

¶31

The issue of short payment of retrenchment compensation deserves to be rejected on the short ground that it was not pressed before the Labour Court and, therefore, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article

¶32

CWP No.4680 of 1994

¶33

-4-

¶34

226 of the Constitution, I would not go into that issue. I draw strength from the law laid down in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 192 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that it is not open to the High Court in writ jurisdiction to entertain a fresh plea or issue not taken before the Labour Court and then proceed to decide it. All that the labour Court could do in the circumstances was to order payment of retrenchment compensation which the workers had refused to accept, which it did. I do not find any error of jurisdiction or any legal or factual infirmity in the award which may call for interference.

¶35

In view of the above I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶36

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 03.01.2012 JUDGE manju

Technical Services Union Regd. v. Po Industrial Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Technical Services Union Regd. v. Po Industrial Tribunal Pb. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Haldari Coop. Credit and Service Society Ltd. Vs Rameshwar and Anr.

Ravinder Paul Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh Vs Managiing Director Patiala Pb.

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs Pseb and Ors.