Disposed

Phool Kumar v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2024CWP/8087/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retrenched employees of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation sought payment of Labour Court-awarded compensation plus interest. The Corporation had wound up with assets transferred to Punjab. The High Court directed respondents, jointly with the State, to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each petitioner within two months, failing which 9% interest would apply.

What did the court decide?

Rs.1 lakh lump sum compensation per petitioner payable in two months; 9% interest if unpaid thereafter; State of Punjab made co-liable.

Phool Kumar Vs Punjab Tourism… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP-8087-2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

207 (05 Cases)

¶4

CWP-8087-2015 Date of Decision : 20.09.2024 PHOOL KUMAR …. PETITIONER

¶5

V/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS …. RESPONDENTS 2. CWP-8094-2015 VIR DEVINDER SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS …. RESPONDENTS 3. CWP-8114-2015 MANGA SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND ORS

¶6

…. RESPONDENTS

¶7

Anju Goel 2024.09.23 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶8

CWP-8087-2015 2

¶9

CWP-8155-2015

¶10

DINESH KUMAR …. PETITIONER

¶11

V/S

¶12

PUNJAB TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

¶13

…. RESPONDENTS

¶14

CWP-4032-2015

¶15

LUXMI PARSHAD …. PETITIONER

¶16

V/S

¶17

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA & ANR

¶18

…. RESPONDENTS

¶19

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶20

Present : Mr. Abhiraj Singh Baweja, Advocate for Mr. H. S. Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶21

Mr. M. K. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-4032-2015.

¶22

Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶23

¶24

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶25

By this common order, the above said petitions are disposed

¶26

Anju Goel 2024.09.23 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CWP-8087-2015 3

¶28

of as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-8087-2015.

¶29

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) whereby reference has been answered against him.

¶30

The petitioner is a former employee of Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. It is undisputed fact that respondentorganisation has already been closed and its assets have either been sold or transferred to State of Punjab because it was State Government Undertaking. The petitioner was retrenched with an intimation that he can collect amount of compensation as determined under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’). The petitioner did not collect amount of compensation and opted to approach Labour Court which vide impugned award dated 11.08.2014 has held that workman is entitled to original amount of compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date when payment became due till actual realization.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have not received amount of compensation as determined by respondent and confirmed by Labour Court. The amount determined was payable in 2007 and at this stage, the same amount cannot be paid. Even otherwise, there was order to pay compensation along with interest @ 12% per

¶32

Anju Goel 2024.09.23 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

CWP-8087-2015 4

¶34

annum.

¶35

Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate submits that as per his instructions, respondent-organization stands wound up. There are no assets with the organization. On being asked, he confirms that assets of the organization were either sold out or transferred to Punjab State Government.

¶36

As per award of Labour Court, the petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs.16,205/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. Similarly, compensation was awarded along with interest to other petitioners. The respondent till date has not made payment of said amount.

¶37

To resolve the issue, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each petitioner within two months from today. In case, respondent fails to pay the said amount, it would be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the expiry of said period. It would be liability of not only respondent No.1-Punjab Terrorism Development Corporation Ltd. but also State of PunjabRespondent No. 3 to pay aforesaid amount of compensation because respondent No. 1 was a State Government and its assets have been transferred to State Government.

¶38

Disposed of.

¶39

20.09.2024 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) anju JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶40

Anju Goel 2024.09.23 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Phool Kumar v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Kumar v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation and Ors.

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Vs Chandigarh Administration and Anr.

Mc Tohana Thr Executive Officer Vs Add. Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Others

Priti Vs State of U.T Chandigarh and Ors.

Tehla Alias Tehal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravina Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

Gagan Vs State of Punjab and Others