Dismissed

Gurmeet Lal v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways,Pathankot and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2019LPA/888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition against an Industrial Tribunal award that reinstated an appellant but denied back wages and continuity, as he worked at another post during the interim.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; award under which appellant was reinstated but denied back wages for interim period is upheld.

Gurmeet Lal Vs General Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

��

��

��

�� !"#$�%��&'

Date of Decision: 21.05.2019

¶6

Gurmeet Lal …..Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot and another

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

��&(� ��)��&����+����&��,���� )��&����,��

¶11

Present : Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

+����&��,����%��'

¶14

�&��!##�-�� !"#$

¶15

Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

¶16

�&��!##$-�� !"#$

¶17

Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of

¶18

65 days in re/filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

¶19

��./��/�� !"#$�%��&

¶20

This intra/court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, dated 19.12.2016.

¶21

Facts in brief relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the controversy at hands can be summarized as under:/

¶22

Initially the appellant/petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondent in the year 1989. However, before completion of 240 days of service he was retrenched w.e.f. 05.08.1990 and an industrial dispute

¶23

RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.05.28 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

��

¶25

was raised by him which was referred for adjudication. The Labour Court passed an award dated 26.02.2001 answering the decision in favour of the appellant herein and a direction was issued to the respondents to reinstate the appellant/petitioner back in service with continuity and full back wages. The respondent roadways challenged the award by filing the writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 795 of 2002. This Court vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2004 allowed the writ petition and set aside the award mainly on the ground that no person junior to the appellant/petitioner was retained in service.

¶26

Subsequently, the appellant/petitioner came to know that after his retrenchment, the respondent/roadways had engaged new conductors, who are still working, as such, he served a demand notice upon the respondents seeking his re/employment inconformity with Section 25/H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute was referred by the appropriate authority for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Gurdaspur.

¶27

The Industrial Tribunal/cum/Labour Court after considering the case set up by the parties and evidence adduced by them vide award dated 19.12.2016 partly accepted the claim of the appellant/petitioner in respect of re/employment. However, the claim of back wages and continuity of service and other related benefits except for the period for which he had already served as Conductor prior to retrenchment was denied.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has been executed and the appellant/petitioner in compliance thereof has been re/employed with the respondent/ corporation. The award has been put to challenge by the appellant/petitioner herein claiming the benefit of length of service and other related benefits of

¶29

RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.05.28 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

��

¶31

pay fixation etc. which came to be dismissed out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal arises.

¶32

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the back wages have rightly been denied to the appellant/ petitioner on the ground that during the interregnum period of his retrenchment and re/employment he has been gainfully employed as Chowkidar/cum/Mali in the office of Divisional Sericulture Officer, Gurdaspur for more than 12 years and 11 months from where he sought voluntary retirement and thus he could not have been employed at two places at the same time.

¶33

The claim of the appellant/petitioner for re/employment was allowed. Since the act of the respondent/corporation was in violation of Section 25/H of the Act inasmuch as the Management failed to offer option to the petitioner/appellant for re/employment before it inducted any other person on the same post. Insofar as the claim of back wages is concerned, we are also of the considered opinion that once the appellant/petitioner was gainfully employed during the interregnum period he would not be entitled for payment of any back wages for the said period as no one can be employed at two places at the same time and draw salary at both places.

¶34

In view of the above facts and discussion we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the leaned Single Judge which may require interference. The appeal is thus devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

¶35

RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.05.28 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurmeet Lal v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways,Pathankot and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeet Lal v. General Manager, Punjab Roadways,Pathankot and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Sandhu Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajender Singh Vs Secretary Board of School Education Haryana Bhiwani and Others

Santosh Nain Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana and Others Vs Ram Karan

Narinder Kumar Vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director C/O Thapar House, Ballarpur and Others

Suresh Kumar Vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director and Others