The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a workman with 50% back wages following his acquittal on embezzlement charges years after termination, finding the award justified under Section 25-F.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 6616 of 2014 (O & M) Date of decision: 29.04.2014
Jalmana Cooperative Society
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mohinder Singh and another
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 4805 of 2014
Application for placing on record Annexure P-2 is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Annexure P-2 is taken on record.
CWP No. 6616 of 2014
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat whereby, the workman has been reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 01.02.2007.
A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Salesman on 14.07.1976 in the Kurlan Cooperative and Credit Service Society now amalgamated in the present society. His services were terminated vide the resolution dated 08.08.1994 due to lodging of an FIR against him bearing No. 305 dated 09.09.1993 at P.S. Assandh under Sections 408/427 IPC. The allegation was that he had made embezzlement alongwith one Raghbir Singh who
Gupta Shivani 2014.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
was posted as Secretary in the Society. The case of the workman was that the award was also passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies in which the workman was not found responsible for the said embezzlement. Eventually, an acquittal order was passed in his favour by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal on 03.06.2004 (Annexure P-2). He served demand notice on 01.02.2007 claiming reinstatement and continuity of service and full back wages.
The Labour Court noticed that the workman had completed 240 days and was entitled for the protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and it was noticed that the services were terminated without conducting any inquiry and the respondents have failed to prove on record by leading evidence that the workman was responsible for the said embezzlement. No evidence had been produced before the Labour Court also to prove the said charge and accordingly, it was held that dismissal was not justified as the workman was condemned unheard. In such circumstances, reinstatement was ordered.
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the termination was in the year 1994 and the workman sat over his rights and the matter was referred in the year 2008 and, therefore, the Court was not justified in directing reinstatement.
The said submission is without any basis. There is no denying the fact that the workman had to go through the grind of criminal prosecution and the acquittal was only on 03.06.2004. Thereafter, on 01.02.2007, demand notice was served and an industrial dispute was raised since cause of action arose to the workman on account of his acquittal. There there is no denying the fact that there was a delay of 3 years from the date of acquittal and serving of the demand notice but the Labour Court has
Gupta Shivani 2014.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
balanced the equity well by granting only 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. It is settled principle of law that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act and thus, the reference could not have been rejected on this ground, as urged by counsel for the management. The back wages have also not been granted to the tune of 100% but only 50% have been granted keeping in view the fact that the workman did not contribute to the petitioner-society. A factual finding has been recorded, to which there is no denial to the fact that no departmental proceedings were initiated against the workman even before the Labour Court to prove the alleged misconduct.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned Award passed by the Labour Court and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
29.04.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani 2014.05.06 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court award directing reinstatement and 50% back wages to an employee acquitted of criminal charges years after termination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jalmana Cooperative Society
Mohinder Singh
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
