Partly allowed

Baljinder Singh v. Presiding Officer & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2016CWP/21894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an Industrial Tribunal award regarding termination violation. While upholding the refusal of reinstatement due to long delay and service length, the court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,25,000.

What did the court decide?

The award is modified to entitle petitioner to compensation of Rs. 1,25,000 instead of Rs. 50,000, payable by respondents within two months with 9% p.a. interest if delayed.

Baljinder Singh Vs Presiding… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-21894-2013

[1]

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶6

CWP-21894-2013 Date of Decision:17.03.2016

Baljinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar and others

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶13

Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab. *****

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20.05.2013, whereby relief of reinstatement was declined to the petitioner.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

¶18

Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice challenging his termination. The

¶19

[2]

¶20

KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶21

CWP-21894-2013

¶22

¶23

said dispute was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government.

¶24

Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 20.05.2013 held that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, while declining the relief of reinstatement, the learned Tribunal held that 20 years had elapsed since the date of termination of the petitioner, therefore, it would be just and expedient to grant compensation to the petitioner.

¶25

In the case of Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Gurdaspur Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, 2014(4) S.C.T. 514 , the Full Bench of this Court has laid down the following principles:-

¶26

“(i) Keeping in view the recognised power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct reinstatement on account of the violation of Section 25-F of the Act the same cannot be denied solely on the ground that appointments were made by public bodies against public posts and were not in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules. (ii) The settled position of law as has been sought to be addressed by this Court is that the provisions of Section 25-F being mandatory and on account of violation of the same, the retrenchment would be

¶27

KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

[3]

CWP-21894-2013

void ab initio as if it was never in operation and, therefore, the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service.

¶32

(iii) The right of reinstatement, however, is not an automatic right as such and while directing reinstatement, the Labour Court will have to take into consideration various aspects as to the nature of appointment, the availability of a post, the availability of work, whether the appointment was per se rules and the statutory provisions and the length of service and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before any award of reinstatement could follow in cases of persons appointed on a short term basis and as daily wagers and who had not worked for long period but solely on the strength of having completed 240 days, would not per se be entitled for reinstatement as such, even though the retrenchment was void. (iv) The said retrenchment being void would, however, not entitle the workman as such to qualify or claim a right for regularization and neither by an order of reinstatement, the permanency could be granted to the said employee and only he would be held to be entitled in continuous service on the same status as he was when his services were terminated.

¶33

(v) The employer would have a right to further terminate him in accordance with law by complying with the mandatory provisions and the employee having any grievance against such a termination could challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶34

KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

[4]

CWP-21894-2013

(vi) The discretion of the Industrial Adjudicator has thus have to be respected and the said Adjudicator has to keep in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed above.

¶39

(vii) We do not subscribe to the view that the public authorities could claim total immunity and protection from the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-B of the Act by taking resort to and shielding themselves on account of the fact that the posts were not filled up in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules and, therefore, per se the workman could not claim reinstatement.”

¶40

In the preset case, petitioner had served the respondents-management from 20.05.1992 to 19.10.1994 as a Class-IV employee. Admittedly, petitioner served the demand notice on 10.11.2000, that is, after six years of the date of his termination. Petitioner had served the respondents-management for about 2½ years. In these circumstances, the learned Industrial Tribunal rightly held that it was a fit case where the workman-petitioner could be compensated by payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, the amount of compensation assessed by the Industrial Tribunal appears to be on a lower side. The Industrial Tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation as `50,000/-. Keeping in view the length of service of the petitioner it would be just and expedient to

¶41

KAPIL 2016.03.22 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

[5]

CWP-21894-2013

enhance the amount of compensation liable to be paid to the petitioner.

¶46

Accordingly, the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20.05.2013 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of 1,25,000/- instead of 50,000/-. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which petitioner would be entitled to receive the said amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization.

¶47

Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶48

March 17, 2016 kapil

¶49

(SABINA) JUDGE

Baljinder Singh v. Presiding Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljinder Singh v. Presiding Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avtar Singh Vs P O L C Amritsar & Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Balwinder Kaur @ Parminder Kaur

Anil Bamania Vs Managing Director State Bank of Patiala and Ors.

Pardeep Kumar and Ors. Vs Bhakhra Beas Management Board and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Patiala and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.