Nek Rak vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1801 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                         .
                                           CWP No.2099 of 2019





                                           Decided on: 08.03.2021

    Nek Rak                                                          ....Petitioner.





                   Versus
    Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & others                            ...Respondents.

    Coram




    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No
    For the petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

    For the respondents : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with
                          Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the award

which has been passed by the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, in ID No.87 of

2010, titled as Nek Ram Versus BSNL, dated 06.05.2019.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the

present petition are as under:-

.

It is not in dispute that services of the petitioner,

who was appointed as Ferro Printer-cum-Peon, on daily wage

basis in the office of management at Ram Nagar, Mandi Town,

District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1996, were terminated on

r to 31.05.2005. This grievance stood raised by the petitioner as an

industrial dispute and a reference was made by the

appropriate government to learned Labour Court, which reads

as under:-

"Whether the workman Shri Nek Ram S/o Shri Jagar Ram was employed as Ferro Printer-cum-

Peon in the Office of Architect, BSNL, Mandi an

Sunder Nagar w.e.f. 1996 to 31.03.2005 through a sham and bogus contractor? If so, whether the

workman is entitled to regular employment and if so form what date and with what benefits?"

3. Vide award dated 06.05.2019, learned Labour

Court held that termination of the service of petitioner was

indeed in violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. After holding so, by placing

.

reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in [2014] 7 SCC 177 titled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Limited Vs. Bhurumal, as well as 2018 LLR 225 titled as

District Development Officer & another Vs. Satish Katilal

r to Amrelia, learned Labour Court ordered payment of an amount

of Rs.3,50,000/-/- to the petitioner in lieu of illegal termination

of his services alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of

publication of the award, but did not order his reinstatement.

The award was not assailed by the management, but the same

stands assailed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that

learned Court below has erred in not ordering the

reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

as learned Labour Court came to the conclusion and rightly so

that termination of the service of petitioner was indeed in

violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, then it should have ordered the reinstatement of

the service of petitioner rather than only compensating him by

.

awarding an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. He submits that the

award passed by learned Tribunal to this extent needs to be

modified and a direction needs to be passed to the

management to reinstate the services of petitioner.

5.

Opposing the prayer, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents has argued that the management has not

assailed the award passed by learned Labour Court and the

amount which stands awarded to the petitioner is more than

reasonable and as no case for reinstatement was made out as

the petitioner was not serving with the management on

regular basis, the Court below has rightly not ordered the

reinstatement of the services of petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having gone through the award passed by learned Labour

Court, this Court is of the view that the award passed by

learned Labour Court calls for no interference.

7. Though, it is not in dispute that the Forum came to

the conclusion that termination of the services of petitioner

.

were indeed in violation of provisions of Section 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, yet whether or not the services of

petitioner ought to have been ordered to be reinstated or the

interest of justice would have been served by directing the

r to management to pay compensation was a call which the

learned Forum below had to take on the basis of pleadings and

evidence before it and it decided that in the facts of the case

and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, interest of justice would be served by directing the

management to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-

rather than ordering the reinstatement of the services of

petitioner.

8. In my considered view, the award passed by

learned Labour Court need not to be interfered. It is not in

dispute that the petitioner was a casual worker engaged on

daily wage basis and he was not on regular rolls of the

management. Therefore, the award passed by learned Labour

Court to the effect that illegal termination of services of the

.

petitioner can be well compensated by granting monetary

compensation rather than reinstatement in service is a

reasoned award. Whether or not, the workman is to be

ordered to be reinstated if termination of his services are

r to found to be illegal is a decision which learned Labour Court

has to make in the facts of the case concerned. In the peculiar

facts of the present case, learned Labour Court came to the

conclusion that the workman can be well compensated

monetarily rather than ordering reinstatement as he was a

casual worker engaged on daily wage basis. The findings so

returned by learned Labour Court are on the basis of the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon in

the award concerned.

9. It is not in dispute that in number of cases which

had facts akin to the present case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India has been pleased to order lump-sum compensation

rather than reengagement of the petitioner. Therefore, as this

Court does not finds any perversity in the award passed by

.

learned Labour Court, this petition being devoid of any merit,

is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also

stand dismissed.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 08,2021 (Rishi)