Allowed

Gajjan Singh v. M/S Essma Woolen Mills Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2014CWP/15755/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a public interest litigation challenging an Industrial Tribunal award upholding a non-termination/lack of termination due to pending inquiry. The order highlights the absurdity of relying on an inquiry that lasted over a decade without conclusion. It quashes the award and directs the Labour Court to decide the reference on merits.

What did the court decide?

The award is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the reference on merits within three months.

Gajjan Singh Vs M/S Essma Woolen… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 15755 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 15755 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.03.2014

Gajjan Singh

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

M/s. Essma Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd. and another

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Ms. Amarjit Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1.

¶13

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in the present writ petition by the petitionerworkman is to the award dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar accepted the absurd defence of the management that the reference was pre-mature and the management had never terminated the services of the workman and the inquiry was still pending and answered the reference against the workman.

¶15

The case of the workman was that he had been working w.e.f. 01.08.1990 and his services had been terminated on 10.12.2002 and he claimed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits and had raised a demand notice dated 03.02.2003.

¶16

The defence of the respondent-company was that the management had never terminated the services of the workman and nor there existed any industrial dispute and inquiry was still pending against the Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 15755 of 2011

¶18

¶19

workman where he has not joined the proceedings.

¶20

The workman was examined as WW-1 and he examined Sukhwant Singh WW-2 as his witness whereas the management examined MW-1 M.J. Khanna.

¶21

The Labour Court, after examining the statements, came to the conclusion that the services of Gajjan Singh had not been terminated and inquiry against him was still pending as per the deposition of the workman himself and also noticed that there was a notice issued regarding the inquiry dated 04.03.2004 and accordingly, came to the conclusion that it was for want of the workman joining the inquiry proceedings. The reasoning given reads thus:-

¶22

“14. Thereafter, the evidence on record go to show that the case of the workman is hopelessly misconceived as even the services of Gajjan Singh have not yet been terminated and infact inquiry against him is still pending as is admitted by the workman while appearing as WW1. The pendency of inquiry is also admitted in the letter Ex.Rx1 sent by Gajjan Singh to the management. He has also admitted having received the notice regarding inquiry dated 4.3.2004 that is Ex.Rx2. So much so that the workman has even stated in his cross examination that he is not ready to join the proceedings of inquiry although he admitted having received the notice of inquiry and also submitted the reply thereto. Thus it is evident that the inquiry into the allegation against workman is still pending for want of the workman joining the inquiry proceedings and the workman admittedly isn't ready to join the inquiry proceedings. So no fault on the part of management could be attributed in non-completion of inquiry, it being solely due to the fault on the part of workman in

¶23

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No. 15755 of 2011

¶25

¶26

intentionally not joining the inquiry proceedings. Admittedly the service of workman have not yet been terminated, so his claim Ex.Rx4 claiming termination of services w.e.f. 10.12.2002 is held to be baseless and fictitious. Once the services of the workman have not been terminated, so no question of its legality and validity arise at all as has been sought by way of the present reference. Resultantly, finding on both these issues is recorded against this workman.”

¶27

However, what the Labour Court seems to have totally missed

¶28

out that when it decided the issue, 6 years had passed by when the notice regarding the proceedings of inquiry had been sent. So, resultantly, the effect of the inquiry proceedings was to keep the workman out of service and amounted to termination, which the Labour Court did not take into consideration. The management was well within its right to show before the Labour Court that there was any misconduct on the part of the workman which would entitle it to dispense with the services of the workman, which procedure had never been followed. Unfortunately, the Labour Court failed to see in to the game of the management and accepted the argument, which cannot be legally sustained.

¶29

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the award of the Labour Court suffers from grave illegality. The Labour Court was bound to answer the reference on merits and not dispose it of in the manner in which it had done without lifting the veil and without taking into consideration the effect of non-completion of inquiry.

¶30

Counsel for the management had been asked to find out the latest position of the inquiry proceedings and the following order was passed on 05.03.2014:-

¶31

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No. 15755 of 2011

¶33

¶34

“Counsel for respondent No.1 prays for some time to find out as to what is the latest position of the enquiry proceedings since a defence was taken that the enquiry was pending and the Industrial Tribunal had returned the reference on the ground that the legality and validity of the termination of service could not be gone into, which, on the face of it, seems to be perverse view.

¶35

To come up for arguments on 27.03.2014.

¶36

Counsel for respondent no. 1 is candid enough to submit that the inquiry proceedings have still not been completed. A period of almost 12 years has passed when the workman's services were terminated and he had been kept away from his place of working. The award, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be justified and the present petition is accordingly allowed and the award is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the reference on merits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶37

A copy of this order be sent to the Labour Court, Amritsar for information and necessary compliance.

¶38

27.03.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE

¶39

Gupta Shivani 2014.04.09 15:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gajjan Singh v. M/S Essma Woolen Mills Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajjan Singh v. M/S Essma Woolen Mills Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhiraj Singh Vs P.S.E.B.& Ors.

M/S Hy.Packers Vs Hy.State & Ors.

Kamikar Singh Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Ludhiana & Anr.

Board of School Education Hy. Vs the Po Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Hissar and Anr.

Berrysons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund

A.K. Srivastava Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.