Dismissed

Divisional Forest Officer Railway Road Karnal v. Satyawan and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013CWP/12066/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Labour Court award reinstating a daily wage employee illegally terminated. The High Court upheld the award, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and allowed the State to recover arrears from responsible officers.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; State permitted to recover arrears of daily wages from responsible officers.

Divisional Forest Officer Railway… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.12066 of 2013

¶3

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *******

¶4

CWP No.12066 of 2013

¶5

DATE OF DECISION :29.5.2013

¶6

Divisional Forest Officer Railway Road, Karnal

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Satyawan and others ...Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, D.A.G. Haryana.

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶15

Invalid termination of a daily wage employee engaged on muster rolls in the Forest Department, Haryana, has led the Labour Court to award reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of demand notice dated 29.12.1997. The total length of service put in by the respondentworkman is 10 years in this case. The Labour Court has returned the twin findings with respect to violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) and serving of 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve calendar months prior to the date of termination. The findings have been recorded after appreciating evidence produced on record.

¶16

The impugned award dated 15.11.2012 has been challenged in this petition by the State Government in the Forest Department.

¶17

-2-

¶18

CWP No.12066 of 2013

¶19

Heard Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner.

¶20

In Maya Devi v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-

¶21

Labour Court, Rohtak and others ; 2012(3) SCT 399, I had occasion to deal with similar issues of invalid termination of a daily wage employee who was retrenched after 19 years of daily wage service. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh ; (2010) 3 SCC 192; Anoop Sharma ; (2010) 5 SCC 497 and Devinder Singh ; (2011) 6 SCC 584, I see no reason to depart from the view taken to achieve a different result in the present litigation.

¶22

This Court has examined similar issues in CWP No.6757 of 2012 decided on 21.3.2013; Smt. Chinti Devi v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & another as well. This was a case involving termination of a daily wage worker who had served for about 5 years. The Labour Court had denied reinstatement but granted meager compensation in the face of violation of Section 25-F in the background of exploitation of workers at the hands of the public servants in the Forest Department, Haryana. This Court found a claim for reinstatement just and appropriate and an entitlement to arrears of daily wages as consequential relief. In order to balance out the competing interests of a disadvantage workman and the impact of back wages on the State exchequer, this Court issued the following directions in the aforesaid case:

¶23

“The Forest Department will remain at liberty to fix responsibility and recover arrears of daily wages payable to the petitioner from those found responsible for not complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and for violating the Government policy as at paragraph 6 of the written statement filed before the Labour Court reproduced above and underlined for emphasis, thereby defeating the lofty claims made in the written statement to deny relief, so that ultimately the public exchequer is not unnecessarily burdened.”

¶24

CWP No.12066 of 2013

¶25

-3-

¶26

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The State would remain at liberty as extracted above.

¶27

29.5.2013 rajeev

¶28

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

Divisional Forest Officer Railway Road Karnal v. Satyawan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Forest Officer Railway Road Karnal v. Satyawan 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

Dalip Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ranjit Singh Chhajalwadi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Satish Aggarwal & Co. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Registrar General Firm and Societies Haryana and Ors.

M/S Laxmi Fruit Company and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.