Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pritam Singh vs The Executive Engineer on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 1149 of 2019 with CWP Nos. 2745,
2746, 2749, 2750, 2751, 2762, 2763, 2764,
2765, 2766, 2767 and 2768 of 2018 and 2275
of 2020
Date of Decision: 09.5.2023
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 1149 of 2019
Pritam Singh
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
.......Respondent
2. CWP No. 2745 of 2018
Malka Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
3. CWP No. 2746 of 2018
Ramesh Chand
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
.......Respondent
4. CWP No. 2749 of 2018
Leela Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
5. CWP No. 2750 of 2018
Krishan Chand
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
.......Respondent
6. CWP No. 2751 of 2018
Sanjay Kumar
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS
-2-
.......Respondent
7. CWP No. 2762 of 2018
.
Reema Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondent
8. CWP No. 2763 of 2018
Guddi Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
9. CWP No. 2764 of 2018
Guddi Devi
.........Petitioner.
r Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
10. CWP No. 2765 of 2018
Savitri Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
.......Respondent
11. CWP No. 2766 of 2018
Vichiter Singh
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
12. CWP No. 2767 of 2018
Nirmala Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Executive Engineer
.......Respondent
13. CWP No. 2768 of 2018
Prem Singh
.........Petitioner.
Versus
The Engineer in Chief and Anr.
.......Respondents
14. CWP No. 2275 of 2020
::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2023 20:35:24 :::CIS
-3-
Sukh Ram
.........Petitioner.
.
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Mahajan Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal
Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr.
Rahul Thakur, Advocate, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Since common facts as well as issues are involved in
the above captioned cases, same were heard together and are
now being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. For the sake of brevity, facts of CWP No. 1149 of 2019 are
being discussed herein after.
3. By way of instant writ petitions filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid by the petitioner(s)
(hereinafter referred to as "the workmen") to award(s) dated
16.10.2017, 20.7.2017, 19.8.2017, 26.2.2018, 29.3.2017, 8.1.2018,
28.2.2017 and 17.8.2019, passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Reference Nos. 173/2016,
610/2016, 139/2016, 734/2016, 541/2016, 210/2016, 641/2016,
793/2016, 736/2016, 549/2015, 742/2016, 585/2015, 681/2016
.
and 158/2017, whereby Tribunal below though held termination of the
petitioners/workmen to be illegal and in violation of provisions
contained in Sections 25 (G), 25 (F), 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, but instead of ordering reinstatement directed the respondents to
pay compensation of Rs. 85,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs. 75,000/-,
Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/-,
Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.
35,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, in lieu of back wages, seniority and past
service benefits etc.
4. For the sake of brevity, facts of CWP No. 1149 of 2019, are
being discussed herein after. On the basis of demand raised by the
petitioner, appropriate government made following reference under
Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short "the Act"):
"Whether alleged termination of services of Sh. Pritam Singh
S/o Sh. Suba Ram, R/o Village Chhow, PO Purthi, Tehsil Pangi,
Distt. Chamba, H.P. from 2004 by the Executive Engineer,
HPPWD, Division, Killar, Tehsil Pangi, Distt. Chamba, H.P., who
had worked as beldar on daily wages basis only for 78 days,
102 days, 26 days, 75.5 days, 111 days, 3 days and 79 days
during the year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
and had raised his industrial dispute vide demand notice dated
8.5.2012 after delay of more than 7 years, allegedly without
complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working
period as mentioned above and delay of more than 7 years in
raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages,
seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-
worker is entitled to from the above employer/management?"
.
5. Petitioners-Workmen, in the above captioned cases,
claimed before the tribunal below that they were engaged by the
respondent/department on daily wage basis on muster roll in the
years, 1997, 1999, 1998 (respectively) and they continued to work in
this capacity upto 2004, 2000, 2001, 1999 (respectively), but
thereafter vide verbal order without there being any notice, their
services were terminated. Workmen alleged that respondent while
terminating their services violated the provisions contained in Sections
25 (F), 25 (G) and (H) of the Act and also permitted their juniors to
remain in service.
6. Aforesaid claim putforth by the workmen came to be
refuted by the respondent/department, who though admitted that
respective petitioners/workmen were engaged as daily wager in the
years, 1997, 1999 and 1998 respectively, but claimed that they
intermittently worked upto 2004, 2000, 2001, 1999. Respondent also
claimed that petitioners of their own left the job and at no point of
time, their services were terminated by the department.
7. Tribunal below on the basis of pleadings as well as
evidence though held the termination of the petitioner(s) to be in
violation of provisions contained under Sections, 25 (F), 25(G) and (H)
(respectively) of the Act, but instead of ordering reinstatement,
awarded compensation to the workmen to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-,
.
Rs.60,000/-, Rs. 75,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-
, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-
, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, respectively, in lieu of
back wages, seniority and past service benefits etc. After being denied
reinstatement, above named petitioners have approached this Court in
the instant proceedings, praying therein for modification of the award
in as much as they have been denied the benefit of reinstatement.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the
learned Tribunal below while awarding compensation to the petitioners
in lieu of the back wages, seniority and past service benefits, this
Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned
counsel for the petitioners-workmen that since workmen had
successfully proved that their services were illegally terminated in
violation of the Section 25 of the Act, petitioners could not have been
denied the reinstatement.
9. Careful perusal of reference made by the appropriate
government under Section 10 (1) of the Act, itself suggests that
question with regard to delay and laches was required to be decided by
the tribunal below while considering the claim of the workmen. It is
not in dispute that no specific objection, if any, was raised by the
workmen qua the terms of reference made to the tribunal below by the
appropriate government, rather workmen by way of filing claim
.
petitions though made an attempt to justify the delay, but as has been
discussed in detail in the impugned award(s), they were unable to
render proper explanation qua the delay in raising the demand.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture
Department and Anr., AIR 2016 Supreme Court 2984, has held
that dispute, if any, raised after an inordinate delay cannot be said to
exist and there is no live dispute. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that if dispute is raised after a long period, it has
to be seen as to whether such a dispute still exists or not? In such
case, law of limitation does not apply, rather it is to be shown by the
workman that there is a dispute in praesenti and for that purpose, he
has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has elapsed and
there are laches and delays, but such delay has not resulted into
making such dispute ceased to exist. Hon'ble Apex Court has further
held that if because of such a delay, dispute no longer remains
alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would non-existent dispute,
which cannot be referred. Most importantly, in the aforesaid
judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in those cases where
court finds that dispute still existed, though raised belatedly, it is
always open for the Court to take the aspect of delay into
consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is still open for
the Court to either grant reinstatement without back wages or lesser
back wages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. Relevant
.
para of the afore judgment reads as under:
"40) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we summarise the
legal position as under:
An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate
Government for adjudication and the workman cannot
approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly,
except in those cases which are covered by Section 2A of the
Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those
cases where the appropriate Government forms an opinion that
'any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended'. The words
'industrial dispute exists' are of paramount importance unless
there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is
apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in
near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or
apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for
making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision
whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate
Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making
of reference is only an administrative function. At the same
time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the
existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an
industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of
industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though
it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on
record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction
dealing with cases where there is apprehended industrial
dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an
industrial dispute. Dispute or difference arises when one party
make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is held by
this Court in number of cases that before raising the industrial
dispute making of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In such
a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he
.
does not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging
wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within
reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of
period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exist.
Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the
workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the
dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to
whether such a dispute still exists? Thus, notwithstanding the
fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by
the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this
purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period
has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not
resulted into making the industrial dispute seized to exist.
Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory
explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that
the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would
not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation
has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay
dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead",
then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred.
Take, for example, a case where the workman issues notice
after his termination, questioning the termination and
demanding reinstatement. He is able to show that there were
discussions from time to time and the parties were trying to sort
out the matter amicably. Or he is able to show that there were
assurances by the Management to the effect that he would be
taken back in service and because of these reasons, he did not
immediately raise the dispute by approaching the labour
authorities seeking reference or did not invoke the remedy
under Section 2A of the Act. In such a scenario, it can be
treated that the dispute was live and existing as the workman
- 10 -
never abandoned his right. However, in this very example, even
if the notice of demand was sent but it did not evoke any
.
positive response or there was specific rejection by the
Management of his demand contained in the notice and
thereafter he sleeps over the matter for number of years, it can
be treated that he accepted the factum of his termination and
rejection thereof by the Management and acquiesced into the
said rejection. Take another example. A workman approaches
the Civil Court by filing a suit against his termination which
was pending for number of years and was ultimately dismissed
on the ground that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to
enforce the contract of personal service and does not grant any
reinstatement. At that stage, when the suit is dismissed or he
withdraws that suit and then involves the machinery under the
Act, it can lead to the conclusion that dispute is still alive as the
workman had not accepted the termination but was agitating
the same; albeit in a wrong forum. In contrast, in those cases
where there was no agitation by the workman against his
termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or
laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had
waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and,
therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become
stale and was not an 'existing dispute'. In such circumstances,
the appropriate Government can refuse to make reference. In
the alternative, the Labour Court/Industrial Court can also
hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning
of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be
granted."
10. If the aforesaid judgment is perused in its entirety,
Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that words, "at any time"
used in Section 10 (1) do not admit of any limitation in making an
- 11 -
order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to the
.
proceedings under the Act ibid. however, the policy of industrial
adjudication is that stale claims should not be generally encouraged or
allowed unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It has
been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if a court finds that
the dispute still exists through raised belatedly, it is always
permissible for the court to take the aspect of the delay into
consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is open for the
court to either grant reinstatement with back wages or lesser back
wages or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. Having taken
note of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Prabhakar's case supra, Division Bench of this Court in case Vyasa
Devi v. The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, passed in CWP No. 640
of 2019 decided on 24.4.2019, has already held that tribunal below
having taken note of delay in referring the demand can mould the
relief by granting lumpsum compensation in lieu of the reinstatement
and seniority, if any. Relevant para of the judgment passed in Vyasa
Devi (supra) reads as under:
"8.A careful perusal of the specific reference made under
Section 10(1) of the Act, which has been taken note herein
above, itself reveals that the question with regard to delay and
laches was required to be decided by the Tribunal while
considering the claim of the workman. It is not in dispute that
at no point in time, dispute, if any, was ever raised by the
workman qua specific reference made to the Labour Court by
- 12 -
the Appropriate Government, rather, the workman by way of
filing claim, made an attempt to justify the delay caused in
.
making the reference, as such, there appears to be no force in
the argument of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the
workman that the learned Tribunal could not have gone into the
question of delay and laches, while ascertaining the claim of the
workman. The Apex Court, in Prabhakar v. Sericulture Deptt.
(2015) 15 SCC 1, while specifically dealing with the question of
delay in raising the dispute by the workman under the Act ibid,
has held that since there is no period of limitation prescribed
under the Industrial Disputes Act, for raising dispute but if
such a dispute is raised after a long period, it is to be seen
whether such a dispute still exists. In the aforesaid
background, Apex Court has held that notwithstanding the fact
that the law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by
the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti and, for that
purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period
has elapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has
not resulted into making such dispute seized to exist. Apex
Court has further held that if because of such a delay, dispute
no longer remains alive and is to be treated as 'dead', then it
would be non-existent dispute, which cannot be referred. In the
aforesaid judgment, Apex Court concluded that the words, "at
any time", used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation
in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not
applicable to the proceedings under the Act ibid. However, the
policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should
not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there is a
satisfactory explanation for the delay. By way of aforesaid
judgment, Apex Court ordered that if a Court finds that the
dispute still exists though raised belatedly, it is always
permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into
consideration and mould the relief. In such cases, it is open for
- 13 -
the Court to either grant reinstatement with back wages or
lesser back wages or grant compensation instead of
.
reinstatement. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon
following judgments rendered by Apex Court, viz.; Rajasthan
State Agriculture Mktg. Board v. Mohan Lal (2013) 14 SCC
543; U.P. SRTC v. Ram Singh (2008) 17 SCC 627; Dharappa v.
Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9
SCC 109; Asstt. Engineer, CAD v. Dhan Kunwar (2006) 5 SCC
481 and Mahavir v. Union of India (2018) 3 SCC 588. Similar
view has been taken by this Court in Girja Nand v. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No. 93 of 2019 decided on
13.3.2019; Smt. Sumfali Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and another, CWP No. 2861 of 2018 decided on 2.4.2019 and;
The Additional Chief Secretary (PW) & Others v. Shri Ram
Gopal, LPA No. 27 of 2019 decided on 3.4.2019. The long and
short of the matter is very well expressed by the maxim,
vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt, that is to say, the
law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not
those that sleep thereupon."
11. The question with regard to competence of the Labour
Court to award compensation in such like cases is no more res integra.
The Apex Court in Workmen Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh v.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2016) 9 SCC 431 and Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh v. Employers, (2017) 1 SCC 264, has dealt with the
issue at hand and has proceeded to award compensation to the tune of
Rs. 4.00 Lakh to each of the workmen in the latter case, as such,
argument advanced by Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate that no
compensation could have been awarded in lieu of reinstatement is not
tenable and deserves outright rejection.
- 14 -
12. In case titled Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai
.
Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
where a workman had worked as daily wager or muster role employee
hardly for a few years and thereafter, raised dispute after an
inordinate delay, it would be just, proper and reasonable to award
lump sum monetary compensation to the workman in full and final
satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement. Relevant paras of the afore
judgment read as under:
"8. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in the
case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra):
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments
that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with
full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal
is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be
a position where services of a regular/permanent
workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or
by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc.
However, when it comes to the case of termination of a
dailywage worker and where the termination is found
illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation
of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is
consistent in taking the view that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and
instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice.
Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
- 15 -
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in
such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the
.
termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment
of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to
the management to terminate the services of that employee
by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such
a workman was working on dailywage basis and even after
he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation
[see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1].
Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no
right to continue even as a dailywage worker, no useful
purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a
workman and he can be given monetary compensation by
the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after
reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation
only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice
pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.
35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There
may be cases where termination of a dailywage worker is
found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as
unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last
come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily
wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a
situation that persons junior to him were regularised
under some policy but the workman concerned
terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker
should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some
other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of
compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases,
reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional
- 16 -
cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief
can be denied."
.
9. Here is also a case where the respondent was held to have
worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few
years in R & B of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim
regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily
wager; and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent
(workman) before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his
alleged termination.
10. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the
respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases
discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra).
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump
sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final
satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other
consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers
under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's
case (supra).
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of
supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs.One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right
to claim reinstatement and back wages in full and final
satisfaction of this dispute.
13. Let the payment of Rs.1,00,000/ be made by the
appellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the
date of receipt of this judgment."
- 17 -
13. In case titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Bhurumal
.
(2014) 7 SCC 177, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when it comes to
the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the
termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect namely in
violation of Section 25-F of the Act, this Court is consistent in taking
the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Relevant paras of
the aforesaid judgment read as under:
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that
the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back
wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where
services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated
illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair
labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of
termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is
found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is
consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement
with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman
should be given monetary compensation which will meet the
ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is
obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such
cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is
found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment
compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required
under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after
- 18 -
reinstatement, it is always open to the management to
terminate the services of that employee by paying him the
.
retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was
working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he
has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v.
Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. Thus when he cannot claim
regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-
wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in
reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary
compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is
terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive
monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment
compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the
relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve
any purpose."
14. Though, in the cases at hand, respective petitioners before
their termination rendered services for 608 days, 434.5 days, 396.5
days, 314 days, 614 days, 386.5 days, 140 days, 132 days, 211 days,
223 days, 30 days, 254 days, 206 days and 183 days respectively, but
since they raised industrial dispute after an inordinate delay of 7
years, 15 years, 13 years, 14 years, 6 years, 16 years and 25 years,
respectively, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been
committed by the tribunal below while directing the respondents to
pay compensation to the petitioners in lieu of reinstatement, back
wages, seniority and past service benefits. However, compensation of
Rs. 85,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs. 75,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-,
Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.30,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-
- 19 -
, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-,
.
awarded by the court below to the respective petitioners in lieu of
back wages and seniority, past service benefits etc., appears to be on
lower side, especially when it is not in dispute that before raising
industrial dispute, petitioners had rendered considerable service on
daily wage basis. Aforesaid compensation awarded by the tribunal
below is not in lieu of reinstatement, but also towards back wages,
seniority and past service benefits and as such, same cannot be
termed to be adequate an accordingly, needs to be modified.
15. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
below, and as such, same is upheld and aforesaid compensation
awarded by the tribunal below, is enhanced as under:
Sr. Case No. Violation Amount Delay Services Enhanced
No. awarded rendered by this
by the court.
tribunal In Rs.
below
1 CWP No. 1149 of Section Rs. 7 608 days 1,40,000/-
2019 25 (G) 85,000/- years
2 CWP No. 2745 of Sections Rs. 15 434.5 1,00,000/-
2018 25 (F), (G) 60,000/- years days
and (H)
3 CWP No. 2746 of Sections Rs. 13 396.5 1,15,000/-
2018 25 (F) and 75,000/- years days
(H)
4 CWP No. 2749 of Sections Rs. 14 314 days 70,000/-
2018 25 (F) and 40,000/- years
(H)
5 CWP No. 2750 of Sections Rs. 13 614 days 1,50,000/-
- 20 -
2018 25 (F), (G) 1,00,000/- years
and (H)
.
6 CWP No. 2751 of Sections Rs. 6 386.5 2,50,000/-
2018 25 (G) 1,75,000/- years days
and (H)
7 CWP No. 2762 of Section Rs. 16 140 days 47,000/-
2018 25 (H) 30,000/- years
8 CWP No. 2763 of Section Rs. 16 132 days 35,000/-
2018 25 (H) 20,000/- years
9 CWP No. 2764 of Sections Rs. 15 211 days 45,000/-
2018 25 (G) 25,000/- years
and (H)
10 CWP No. 2765 of Sections Rs. 14 223 days 1,50,000/-
2018 25 (G) 1,00,000/- years
and (H)
11 CWP No. 2766 of Section Rs. 16 30 days 25,000/-
2018 25 (H) 15,000/- years
12 CWP No. 2767 of Section Rs. 14 254 days 1,50,000/-
2018 25 (H) 1,00,000/- years
13 CWP No. 2768 of Section Rs. 16 206 days 52,000/-
2018 25 (H) 35,000/- years
14 CWP No. 2275 of Section Rs. 25 183 days 42,000/-
2020 25 (H) 25,000/- years
16. Since petitioners are fighting for their rightful claim for
so many years, this Court hopes and trusts that amount of
compensation as quantified by this Court in lieu of reinstatement,
back wages, seniority and past service benefits etc., shall be paid by
the respondent /department to the petitioners within six weeks, failing
which workmen would be entitled to the interest @ 6% pa from the
date of passing of the award.
- 21 -
17. Present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending
.
applications, if any.
May 9, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
r to
