Dismissed

Ravi Kumar v. Municipal Council Gobindgarh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2018LPA/538/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against a labour court order denying reinstatement but awarding compensation. The bench found no material evidence that the appellant was directly employed rather than through a contractor, thus finding no infirmity in the lower court's judgment to warrant enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed in limine with no enhancement of compensation.

Ravi Kumar Vs Municipal Council… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

LPA No. 538 of 2018 ( O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 09. 10. 2018

Ravi Kumar

…. . Appel l ant

ver sus

The Muni ci pal Counci l , Gobi ndgar h, Fat ehgar h Sahi b and anot her

¶7

. . . . . Respondent s

¶8

CORAM: - HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI , JUDGE

¶9

Pr esent : Shr i R. K. Ar or a, Advocat e f or t he appel l ant

¶10

KRI SHNA MURARI , CHI EF JUSTI CE : ( Or al ) CM- 4105- LPA- 2018:

¶11

I n vi ew of t he af f i davi t f i l ed i n t er ms of or der dat ed 18. 07. 2018, t he sai d or der st ands r ecal l ed and appeal st ands r est or ed t o i t s or i gi nal number .

¶12

LPA- 538- 2018:

¶13

Af t er r est or i ng t he appeal , t he same was hear d on

¶14

mer i t s.

¶15

The pr esent appeal i s di r ect ed agai nst t he j udgment and or der dat ed 26. 10. 2017 passed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge whi l e di sposi ng of t he pet i t i on f i l ed by empl oyer / r espondent wher eby compensat i on of Rs. 1, 50, 000/ - was awar ded t o appel l ant / wor kman.

¶16

Fact s gi vi ng r i se t o t he di sput e ar e as under .

¶17

Appel l ant / wor kman r ai sed an i ndust r i al di sput e by i ssui ng demand not i ce dat ed 27. 07. 2005 al l egi ng t hat he was

¶18

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.10 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

LPA- 538- 2018

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

empl oyed by t he Muni ci pal Counci l , Gobi ndgar h. He wor ked f r om 12. 09. 2002 t o 14. 09. 2004. Hi s ser vi ces wer e or al l y t er mi nat ed wi t h ef f ect f r om 15. 09. 2004. The Labour Tr i bunal r et ur ned a f i ndi ng t hat t he wor kman has r egul ar l y wor ked wi t h t he Muni ci pal Counci l f or 370 days and hi s ser vi ces have been t er mi nat ed wi t hout i ssui ng any not i ce, char ge- sheet , payment of compensat i on and wi t hout hol di ng any enqui r y and, t hus, answer ed t he r ef er ence i n f avour of t he wor kman and agai nst t he empl oyer di r ect i ng r ei nst at ement wi t h cont i nui t y of ser vi ce. However , payment of backwages was deni ed.

¶22

The awar d passed by t he Labour Tr i bunal was put t o chal l enge bef or e t hi s Cour t by t he empl oyer . The case set up bef or e t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge was t hat t he wor kman was not appoi nt ed agai nst a subst ant i ve post af t er f ol l owi ng t he pr ocedur e pr escr i bed and hi s ser vi ces wer e engaged t hr ough a cont r act or . I t was al so poi nt ed out t hat t her e was no mat er i al pl aced bef or e t he Labour Tr i bunal t o show t hat engagement of wor kman was made on a subst ant i ve post af t er f ol l owi ng t he pr ocedur e pr escr i bed and i n t he absence of any evi dence t o t hat ef f ect t he awar d was vi t i at ed.

¶23

The l ear ned si ngl e Judge f i ndi ng t hat r el i ance pl aced t hr oughout by t he wor kman was on a document Exhi bi t W- 3 whi ch was a cer t i f i cat e i ssued by Execut i ve Of f i cer , Muni ci pal Counci l , Gobi ndgar h, cer t i f yi ng t hat t he wor kman has wor ked f r om 04. 05. 2003 t o 01. 07. 2004 and 25. 07. 2004 t o 29. 09. 2004 and hi s ser vi ces wer e engaged t hr ough cont r act or , came t o t he concl usi on t hat t he wor kman was not ent i t l ed t o r ei nst at ement i nasmuch as even i f i t i s pr esumed t hat appoi nt ment was made

¶24

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.10 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

LPA- 538- 2018

¶26

- 3 -

¶27

by t he empl oyer i t di d not st and t he t est of Ar t i cl es 14 and 16 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a si nce t he pr ocedur e pr escr i bed was not demonst r at ed t o have been f ol l owed whi l e maki ng t he appoi nt ment . However , i n or der t o adj ust t he equi t i es bet ween t he par t i es, t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge awar ded a sum of Rs. 1. 50 l akhs as compensat i on t o t he wor kman. Aggr i eved by t he same, t he pr esent appeal has been pr ef er r ed.

¶28

The i ssue as t o whet her t he wor kman was engaged by t he empl oyer di r ect l y or t hr ough cont r act or i s t he bone of cont ent i on. However , f r om a per usal of t he mat er i al br ought on r ecor d, we do not f i nd any evi dence t o subst ant i at e t he al l egat i on t hat appoi nt ment of wor kman was made i n accor dance wi t h t he pr ocedur e pr escr i bed so t hat i t can wi t hst and t he t est of Ar t i cl es 14 and 16. On t he cont r ar y, t he document on r ecor d i . e. cer t i f i cat e dat ed 22. 10. 2008, on whi ch r el i ance was bei ng pl aced by t he wor kman hi msel f , goes t o show t hat hi s ser vi ces wer e avai l ed t hr ough cont r act or at D. C. r at e af t er cal l i ng f or t ender s.

¶29

I n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances, t he wor kman t hough may not be ent i t l ed f or any compensat i on but si nce t he l ear ned si ngl e Judge has awar ded t he same on equi t abl e consi der at i ons, t her e exi st s no good gr ound f or enhancement of t he same as has been pr ayed by t he appel l ant . I t may al so be per t i nent t o poi nt out t hat even on our r epeat ed aski ng no mat er i al has been pl aced bef or e us whi ch coul d even r emot el y demonst r at e t hat t he appoi nt ment of wor kman was made by t he Muni ci pal Counci l di r ect l y and not t hr ough cont r act or .

¶30

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.10 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

LPA- 538- 2018

¶32

- 4 -

¶33

Once t hat i s t he si t uat i on, t he i mpugned j udgment r ender ed by l ear ned si ngl e Judge suf f er s f r om no i nf i r mi t y whi ch may r equi r e any i nt er f er ence. The appeal i s devoi d of any mer i t and st ands di smi ssed i n l i mi ne .

¶34

( KRI SHNA MURARI ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶35

( ARUN PALLI ) JUDGE

¶36

1. 2018 par kash

¶37

NOTE: Whet her speaki ng/ non- speaki ng: Speaki ng Whet her r epor t abl e: YES/ NO

¶38

PARKASH CHAND 2018.10.10 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ravi Kumar v. Municipal Council Gobindgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. Municipal Council Gobindgarh and Anr.

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

Samunder Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Devender Vs Allahabad Bank and Others

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Ors.

State of Haryana and Others Vs Dharmvir

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Roop Singh

Sanjay Kumar Vs State Bank of Patiala and Ors.