Partly allowed

Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2014CWP/13594/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,10,000 awarded by the Labour Court for illegal termination of daily wager workmen, ordering payment within two months with interest and litigation expenses.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,10,000 per head with 9% interest and Rs. 10,000 litigation expenses to be paid within two months.

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 13594 of 2010 Reserved on 24.03.2014 Date of Decision : 24.04.2014

¶5

Harbans Singh

¶6

..........Petitioner(s)

¶7

vs.

¶8

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and others

¶9

.......Respondent(s)

¶10

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present: Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

¶13

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

¶14

The present judgment shall dispose of five writ petitions namely CWP Nos. 13594, 13659, 13660, 13667 and 13668 of 2010, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 13594 of 2010, Harbans Singh vs.

¶15

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and others.

¶16

The petitioner-workman is aggrieved against the award dated 21.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation for illegal termination, failing which, he shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till realization.

¶17

A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the Directorate, Local Bodies, Punjab, vide letter dated 03.09.2001, appointed 41 persons on daily wage basis as Registering Clerks for the purpose of Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶19

¶20

preparing recommendations regarding delimitation of awards of Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils of the State by collecting data by visiting door to door. The workman had earlier also served w.e.f. 10.03.1995 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 10.04.1997. The services of the persons at Sr. Nos. 4 and 6 were regularized and it was recommended that the workmen be adjusted in other departments. This Court had passed order dated 01.04.1997, which had allegedly been violated and an order dated 23.10.2001 had been issued where, a workman and other co-workers were asked to submit a representation for adjustment in other departments, which was to be considered in view of the order passed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2001. A representation had been made on 07.12.2001 but no reply was sent. The work was perennial in nature and the termination on 13.11.2002 was illegal and not justified since the workman had worked for more than 240 days. It was submitted that unfair labour practice had been adopted since initially appointment had been made from 1995 to 1997 and secondly, the appointment was made from 2001 to 2002. This Court had been approached by filing CWP No. 18359 of 2002 and liberty had been granted to avail the alternative remedy. Accordingly, claim statement was filed.

¶21

In the defence taken by the respondent-State, it was pleaded that the workman was appointed as a Registering Clerk on temporary basis for collecting the data of population and the Government could terminate his services at any point of time without any notice. CWP No. 5746 of 1997 initially was filed for regularization, which was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed on 20.02.2001 with the liberty that the workman could compete against available vacancies and Government of Punjab would consider Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶23

¶24

relaxing the age. On the completion of the said work, the services were dispensed with on 13.11.2002. Another writ petition bearing CWP No. 18359 of 2002 was also filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The Labour Court examined the Assistant Director, Inderjit Singh Randhawa whereas the workman examined himself as AW1. The appointment order dated 03.09.2001 was exhibited as Ex.W-1 whereas the termination order dated 12.11.2002 was exhibited as Ex.W-2.

¶25

After examining the pleadings and evidence on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of appointment dated 03.09.2001 was independent of the judgment passed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2001 whereby, the benefit of relaxation of age had to be given. In view of the fact that the workman completed 240 days preceding the date of termination, it was held that he was entitled for protection and there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, 2008 (8) SCC 402 and compensation was granted to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount was paltry since the petitioner had worked for over an year and even earlier also, the petitioner's services had been taken for a period of two years and, therefore, the amount of compensation was on the lower side.

¶27

Counsel for the State, on the other hand, defended the order and submitted that it was temporary post and consolidated amount of Rs.2,614/was being paid to the workmen, who were daily wagers and Government could terminate his services without giving any notice. As per Clause 5, the conditions had been accepted by the workmen and, therefore, now they Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶29

¶30

could not turn around and agitate for reinstatement.

¶31

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the appointment letter dated 30.09.2001 (Annexure R-1), which was jointly issued to 41 workmen would go on to show that it was a contractual appointment for a specific work for collecting the data of population. Therefore, the Labour Court is well justified in withholding the relief of reinstatement and directing only payment of compensation on account of the fact that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had been violated as admittedly, the petitioners had completed 240 days. However, the amount of compensation which has been awarded is not adequate in the opinion of this Court.

¶32

Reference can be made to various judgments of the Apex Court in the recent past, wherein compensation has been granted in lieu of reinstatement.

¶33

In State of M.P. And others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, a sum of `1,50,000/- was awarded as compensation on the ground that the appointment was not in terms of the statutory rules. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353 , the service was from 01.08.1989 to 24.11.1991 and the workman had approached the Conciliation Officer after a period of 6 years. Inspite of that, the Apex Court granted compensation of Rs.75,000/- in favour of the workman. In Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748 , the period of employment was from 13.12.1991 to 01.03.1994. The Apex Court held that each case is required to be dealt with in the fact situation obtaining therein and the determination is to be seen as to what relief is to be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶35

¶36

while awarding a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of compensation.

¶37

In In-charge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 , a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was granted to a workman who had continued for about 7 years, intermittently and was engaged as a daily wager between 1978-85. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 , the workman worked from 01.09.1995 to 18.07.1996 and was paid consolidated wages of Rs.1,498/- per month and the Apex Court granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the workman.

¶38

The latest authority on this point is Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam Singh 2013 (2)

¶39

SCT 30 wherein the workman was engaged from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to meet the ends of justice after considering the case law on the subject. The relevant observation read as under:

¶40

“31. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28.06.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We

¶41

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶43

¶44

order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum.”

¶45

Keeping in view the service period of over one year preceding the retrenchment and the workman earlier having also worked for 2 years from March, 1995 to April, 1997 and having litigated upto the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in each case would be just and adequate compensation which will be payable to the workmen keeping in view their length of service and the fact that they have been litigating for their rights for the last more than a decade.

¶46

In addition to that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is also awarded as litigation expenses in each case since the award was dated 21.07.2009 and interest has also been awarded @9% per annum from the date of award. The matter has been pending for the last 3-1/2 years before this Court and the petitioners have also been deprived of the said amount. The said amount be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, failing which, they will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order.

¶47

The Award is accordingly modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced to `1,10,000/- in each case.

¶48

24.04.2014 shivani

¶49

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge

¶50

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.25 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

CWP No. 13594 of 2010

¶52

¶53