Writ petition challenging cancellation of industrial worker plot allotment. Court held supervisor with family equity is not 'industrial worker' for scheme purposes.
Writ petition dismissed; order dated 4.2.2010 cancelling the allotment affirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 23.2.2012 CWP No. 5357 of 2010 (O&M)
Kamal Kant and another
.....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and ors
...Respondents
Present: - Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4.
CORAM: -HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
HEMANT GUPTA, J
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat, whereby the allotment of Plot No. 1522-P, Sector 25, Part-II, Panipat as an industrial worker was cancelled.
Respondents-HUDA invited applications for allotment of residential plots from the general public as well as from the industrial workers. Petitioner No. 1 applied for allotment of 8 marla plot after depositing 10% amount of the total tentative cost of the plot. The petitioner was issued a letter of allotment dated 28.2.2002.
A writ petition was filed before this Court i.e. CWP No. 253 of 2008, P.P.Kapoor vs. State of Haryana and others , challenging the allotment of plot to the industrial workers on the ground that the allotments have been made to the persons who are not eligible. This Court vide the order dated 16.9.2009 directed the Vigilance Department to conduct investigations. The Vigilance in its report found that many allotments have been made to ineligible applicants. It was also
CWP No. 5357 of 2010
found that the petitioner No. 1 was drawing the salary of Rs. 10,200/- and therefore, he is not an industrial worker. A show cause notice dated 31.7.2009 was issued to the petitioner No. 1 and after considering his reply dated 21.8.2009, an order of cancellation of allotment of plot was passed.
It is averred by the petitioner No. 1 that he joined M/s Jamuna Iron Foundry on the post of Supervisor and is having a separate family. His earning is Rs. 6550/- per month at the time, when he submitted the application for allotment of plot. He has attached the Wages Register from the year 1998 to 2002 (Annexure P-3). The Petitioner relies upon the definition of industrial worker in Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'). The reliance of the petitioners on the definition of ' Industiral Worker' under the 'Act' is of not helpful to the arguments raised as the aforesaid Act is applicable only to the houses constructed by the State Government for the occupation of the industrial workers under the Industrial Housing Scheme subsidized by the Central Government in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The present Housing Scheme is neither by the State Government nor such Scheme is subsidized by the Central Government. Therefore, the provisions of the Act including the definition of ' Industrial Worker' to mean a worker in terms of the Factories Act, 1948 cannot be extended to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise a 'worker' as defined in Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 has to be engaged directly or indirectly whether for remuneration or not in any 'manufacturing process' . The 'manufacturing process' is defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948. A supervisor such as the petitioners is not engaged in the manufacturing process and thus, is not a worker.
The advertisements or the brochures do not define that for the purpose of eligibility who shall be an ' industrial worker'. The Scheme envisages allotment of plot 9 x 20 meter size of the plot. The purpose of the Scheme i.e. to facilitate the industrial worker in having a plot at their work place. Therefore, an expression, ' industrial worker' has to be given a meaning which is generally understood. Such industrial workers can only be the workers who are engaged in
CWP No. 5357 of 2010
any manufacturing activity at the lowest level. A supervisor such as the petitioners cannot be deemed to be an industrial worker. It is more so when the father of the petitioner No. 1 is even holding 15% share in the firm owning the industrial unit in which, the petitioner is engaged as supervisor.
Therefore, the allotment of plot allotted to the petitioners has been rightly cancelled. We do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
23.2.2012 preeti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a supervisor on a minimal salary in an industrial firm holding family equity qualifies as an 'industrial worker' for public housing scheme allotment.
Whether the cancellation of a residential plot allotment to a person not meeting the 'industrial worker' criteria was legally sustainable.
Kamal Kant and another
State of Haryana and ors
Hemant Gupta
A.N.Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
