Petitioner challenged a Labour Court award held that he had been properly retrenched without violating Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act as evidence of violation was lacking. The High Court rejected the writ petition.
The writ petition filed to quash the Labour Court award was dismissed.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 19985 of 2012
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 19985 of 2012 Date of Decision: 14.3.2016.
Roop Chand
........Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P-1).
Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P-2). Case of the petitioner was that he had joined as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar with the respondent society on 24.2.1978 and later he was promoted as Clerk-cum-Typist with effect from 1.7.1985. Vide resolution dated 25.9.2001, petitioner was retrenched by the respondent society in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short). Petitioner was not paid any retrenchment compensation as per law at the time of his retrenchment. Vide resolution dated 25.9.2001, society was bound
GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.17 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 19985 of 2012 -2-
to re-employ the retrenched employees as per their seniority in case the society started its business again in the future. Society started its business in the year 2003/2004 but petitioner was not called for re-employment. Hence, the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act had been violated.
Dispute raised by the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ambala by the appropriate Government.
Labour Court, Ambala vide award dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P-1) declined the reference sought by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner/workman.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was retrenched vide resolution dated 25.9.2001. At the time of retrenchment, petitioner was paid retrenchment compensation and one month salary in lieu of notice. Petitioner accepted and encashed the draft as well as the cheque given to him in this regard. It has been noticed by the Labour Court that as per Exhibit M-3, petitioner was the junior most employee at the time of retrenchment. Hence, the Labour Court rightly held that provisions of Section 25-G of the Act had not been violated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only dispute that requires consideration at this stage is as to whether provisions of Section 25-H of the Act had been violated in the present case.
GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.17 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 19985 of 2012
-3-
Section 25-H of the Act reads as under:-
Re-employment of retrenched workmen .- Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
Thus, as per the above provision, where a workman was retrenched and the employer proposes to employ any persons, he shall give an opportunity to the retrenched employee for re-employment. In the present case, admittedly, the society closed its business in the year 2001 and restarted its business on 31.12.2003. However, there is no material on record to suggest that in the present case, provisions of Section 25-H of the Act had been violated. Although, petitioner had alleged that provisions of Section 25-H of the Act had been violated but he had failed to lead any evidence in this regard.
In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
March 14, 2016 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2016.03.17 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were violated upon the society restarting its business without re-employing the retrenched workman.
Whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Labour Court award.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Roop Chand
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
