Single judge order dismissing a Writ Petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award. The court held the Labour Court's findings regarding the contractor's lack of license and the statutory liability of the department were correct, and the writ petition was dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed in limine.
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.
CWP No. 1859 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1859 of 2014 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.03.2014
Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry (Farms), Nabha and another
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Nikka Singh and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the petitioners.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 3725 of 2014
Application for placing on record affidavit alongwith Annexures P-6 to P-10 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Affidavit alongwith the said Annexures is taken on record.
CWP No. 1859 of 2014
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala whereby, a sum of `15,000/- has been awarded to the respondent-workman on account of the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') in lieu of reinstatement.
A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that the workman submitted his statement of claim taking the plea that he had worked from 03.01.2003 to 08.09.2005 as a Beldar in a Dairy Farm, Nabha. His services were dispensed with without following proper procedure on Gupta Shivani 2014.04.01 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 1859 of 2014
2
09.09.2005. He was drawing `2,125/- per month at the time of his termination and he had been victimized and his juniors were still working.
The defence taken by the petitioner-State was that the contract had been given on 27.06.2002 to one Gurcharan Singh, Contractor who deputed his own workers. It was also denied that the workman had put in continuous service. The amount payable was also denied by the department.
The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the statement of the workman as WW1 and Om Parkash Attri, Assistant Director, MW-1, held that there was no denial that the workman had worked from 03.01.2003 to 08.09.2005, which came forth in the cross examination of the management witness. Accordingly, a finding was recorded that he had worked for 240 days preceding his termination and, thus, entitled to the protection of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court also held that the department had got the registration for employing contract labour after receiving the letter dated 12.06.2006 and they deposited the fees for obtaining the licence on 15.06.2006 for the first time. It was noticed that though letter dated 22.08.1996 was written from the Director, Animal Husbandry to Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Patiala for getting the work done on contract basis but since the workman was terminated prior to the licence being obtained on 15.06.2006, the statutory liability would be of the petitioner-department. However, keeping in view the fact that it was an ad-hoc/temporary appointment, the benefit of reinstatement was not given since the workman was terminated in the year 2005 and a period of 8 years had elapsed when the award was passed in the year 2013. A firm finding of fact has thus, been recorded that at the time when his services were dispensed with, the contractor was not a licensed Gupta Shivani 2014.04.01 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 1859 of 2014
3
contractor and, therefore, the workman was entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act and the responsibility could not have been shifted to the contractor.
State counsel had taken time on 03.02.2014 to place some evidence before this Court to show that the contractor was licensed prior to the services being terminated.
Certain documents have been placed on record today in the form of Annexures P-6 to P-10, which included the cross examination of MW-1, which further goes on to substantiate that the findings recorded by the Labour Court were well justified since in the deposition of MW-1, it has clearly come that he could not produce the contract licence of the contractor and that the licence was obtained for the first time on 15.06.2006. The other documents only show that the work was to be given on contract basis and nothing has been brought on record to show that the contractor was duly licensed and on account of not having the said licence at the relevant time, the compensation has been awarded.
No fault can be found in the well reasoned order passed by the Labour Court and the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
25.03.2014 shivani
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE
Gupta Shivani 2014.04.01 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the department is liable instead of the contractor when the contractor was not licensed at the time of termination.
Whether the delay in approaching the Tribunal precludes the grant of relief.
Whether the industrial tribunal's award imposing liability on the department for a violation of Section 25-F stands to be challenged in this writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry (Farms), Nabha
Nikka Singh
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
