Partly allowed

Raj Kumari v. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CWP/20529/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the compensation of Rs.20,000 awarded in lieu of reinstatement was inadequate. The court modified the awards in multiple writ petitions against the same university, directing payment of Rs.2 lacs per petitioner to compensate for the breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned awards modified to grant compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of reinstatement to each petitioner, payable within 60 days with 12% interest on delay.

Raj Kumari Vs Pec University of Technology… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Raj Kumari

¶5

1. CWP No.20529 of 2011 ..... Petitioner Versus

¶6

PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another

¶7

..... Respondents 2. CWP No.20531 of 2011

¶8

Kesho Rani

¶9

..... Petitioner Versus PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents 3. CWP No.20532 of 2011 Om Parkash Yadav ..... Petitioner Versus PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents 4. CWP No.20533 of 2011 Sanju ..... Petitioner Versus PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents 5. CWP No.20536 of 2011

¶10

Sonu Lal

¶11

-2-

¶12

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶13

..... Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another

¶16

..... Respondents

¶17

6. CWP No.20546 of 2011

Ram Lal

..... Petitioner

Versus

PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh and another

¶22

..... Respondents

¶23

DATE OF DECISION : 28.05.2013

¶24

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

¶25

Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶26

Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for respondent No.1

¶27

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶28

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

¶29

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶30

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above noted 6 writ petitions, they are heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts have, however, been extracted from CWP No.20529 of 2011.

¶31

The short controversy involved in these labour matters is whether relief of reinstatement was rightly denied and instead award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was adequate and justified. This issue is required to be examined on certain factual inputs.

¶32

Admittedly, in all the cases the total length of service spent

¶33

-3-

¶34

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶35

before termination was more than 4 years on contract basis. In the appointment letter, it was mentioned that the workman was engaged on contract basis on fixed wages for six months and the contract between the parties could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason with seven days notice from either side. The contract was extended from time to time with one day’s notional break. Wages and other conditions remained the same as per extension letters. The workman had joined the department on the basis of an appointment letter and continued to work till 11.07.2007, when the management relieved the workman on expiry of terms of her last extension letter. However, no separate notice of seven days was served upon the worker.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any notice was served on the workman nor was retrenchment compensation paid to her before dispensing with her services.

¶37

On the other hand, Mr. R.S.Bains, learned counsel for respondent No.1 argues that the period of last contract of the workman expired on 31.04.2007 and the same was not renewed thereafter. Since the termination of services was due to non-renewal of contract it does not constitute retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’ ) and, therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court to submit that, where the workman had been continued in service with notional breaks, the management cannot take shelter of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act, and once it is shown that the

¶39

-4-

¶40

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶41

workman had completed 240 days in the 12 Calendar months preceding the date of his removal, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 25F of the Act and, on non-compliance thereof he would be entitled to reinstatement with a right to continuity of service with full back wages. Towards this, he has placed reliance on Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur , 2011 (3) SCT-139, decided by the Supreme Court, as also on two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Chairman, The Mewat Development Agency, Nuh Vs. Ravinder Balwan and another , 2012 (3) SCT 154, and Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh and others Vs. Baljinder Singh and another , 2006 (2) SCT 105. In the last case cited, it was held as under:

¶42

“...From a perusal of the facts narrated hereinabove, it is apparent that the respondent-workman was repeatedly appointed on 89 days basis. Such an act of repeated appointments with notional breaks amounts to an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court was fully justified in recording such a conclusion on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶43

By the impugned award dated 01.03.2011 relief of reinstatement with full back wages has been declined and the workman has been held entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lieu thereof.

¶44

The Tribunal may be justified in not awarding reinstatement. However, for breach of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be just and proper relief which can be granted.

¶45

The question of what should be adequate compensation is a rather vexed question to answer and its determination appears to be largely based on gut reactions of Courts tempered with judicial experience and of the total impact of fact situations presented before it in myriad cases while

¶46

-5-

¶47

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶48

dealing with them from time to time and case to case. There can be no judicial uniformity or strait jacket formula in such exercise. Neither would it be wise to do so.

¶49

In ‘State of Haryana Vs. Ishwar Singh and another’ , 2008 (3) S.C.T., 788, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down a rough rule that in the cases of award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for each completed year of service can be considered just and reasonable.

¶50

In ‘BSNL vs. Man Singh’ , (2012) 1 SCC 558 in a case of two daily wage employees who had served the corporation for about two years and were retrenched in 1986 and had raised demand notice for the first time in 1991 the Supreme Court ordered compensation of Rs.2 lacs to each of the workman as just and adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶51

In ‘Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr vs.

¶52

Gitam Singh’ , 2013 STPL (Web) 84 SC the Supreme Court awarded Rs.50,000/- for a brief daily wage service of eight months. Cases can be multiplied but would needlessly burden the judgment for no real or further purpose.

¶53

The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases can be applied to the facts of these cases and the relief of compensation deserves to be modified as Rs.2 lacs in each case as fair compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶54

Resultantly, these writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned awards are modified by maintaining the same but with the modification that the petitioners-workmen would be entitled to

¶55

CWP No.20529, 20531, 20532, 20533, 20536 and 20546 of 2011

¶56

-6-

¶57

compensation of Rs.2 lacs in each case. Let this amount be now paid to the workmen within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 12% would run till realization.

¶58

Ordered accordingly.

¶59

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE

¶60

28.05.2013 manju

Raj Kumari v. Pec University of Technology and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. Pec University of Technology 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

All Haryana Attorneys Welfare Association Vs Bar Council and India and Anr.

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Fatehabad Coop. Marketing and Processing Society Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

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.