Punjab-Haryana High Court
Block Education Officer And Anr vs Maman Ram on 7 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(217)
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-07.09.2022.
The Block Education Officer, Hisar-II, Mohalla Rampura Hisar, District
Hisar and another
......Appellants
Versus
Maman Ram and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate for respondent-workman.
****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
CM-809-LPA-2018
Prayer in this application is for exemption from filing of
certified copies of civil writ petition, written statements, affidavit and
Annexures as well as from filing of typed copies of civil writ petition along
with its Annexures, written statement and judgment dated 11.08.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and exemption is granted as prayed for.
CM-810-LPA-2018
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 155
days in re-filing the appeal.
Perusal of the application indicates that the reasons mentioned
1 of 6
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
therein appear to be plausible and justified, delay on the part of the
appellants being bona fide. The application is supported by the affidavit of
the Block Education Officer, Adampur, District Hisar.
In the light of the above, the prayer made in this application is
allowed and delay of 155 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.
LPA-329-2018
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge dated 11.08.2017, whereby, the learned Single Judge
has, on a writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 challenging the validity
of the Award dated 23.04.2010, allowed by setting aside the Award on the
ground that the respondent-workman was appointed as a Water Carrier on
09.12.1998 and his services were terminated on 28.02.2003. It was stated in
the order that the post of Water Carrier is provided for in the Statutory
Rules and, therefore, he having worked with respondents (appellants
herein) on the said post for a period of more than 240 days in each calendar
year, was entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was
further stated that he was working against a post which was provided for
under the Haryana State Secondary Education Field Offices (Group-D)
Service Rules, 1998 and was, thus, entitled to the protection of the said
Statutory Rules. In case the services of the respondent-workman had to be
terminated, the requirement of following the Haryana Civil Services
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987, was mandatory. Since no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated, the termination of the respondent-workman was
unsustainable. On this ground, the Award had been set aside and the
respondent-workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service with all
2 of 6
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
consequential benefits from the date of termination till reinstatement, with a
further direction to reinstate him within a period of two weeks from the date
of the order.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the appointment of the respondent-workman was on contractual basis
for a period of 10 months for each year. Sanction was granted by the
competent authority for the above specified period. After the completion of
the term, the services of the respondent-workman were dispensed with and
in the subsequent year again the same process was followed. It is contended
that the need of the Water Carrier in the School was felt for the reason that
there was no running water supply to the school and the Water Carrier used
to bring water in the school for being used in the school for distributing and
serving the students and the staff. It has been contended that due to the
instructions which have been received from the competent authority vide
letter dated 17.09.2002, the running water supply having been provided to
the school, need for continuing with the post of Water Carrier was not
found to be essential and, therefore, for the subsequent year, after the work
period of the respondent-workman had come to an end on 28.02.2003, no
further contract was granted to him. On this basis, it is contended that it
being a pure contractual appointment and that too for a fixed term, as per
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specially Section 2 (oo)
(bb), it would not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, the Labour Court
has rightly proceeded to decline the reference and decided the same against
the respondent-workman. Counsel for the appellants, on this basis contends,
that the order, as has been passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot
3 of 6
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
sustain specially in the light of the fact that the appointment of the
respondent-workman was neither as per the Statutory Rules nor on the
sanctioned post but was limited to the extent of contractual appointment,
for which sanction was granted every year from the competent authority.
Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge and for dismissal of the writ petition.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-
workman has contended that the fact with regard to the respondent-
workman having worked with the appellants from 09.12.1998 till
28.02.2003 has not been disputed, rather in the statement before the Labour
Court, it has been admitted by the Head Master that the respondent-
workman had been working continuously for the said period, although at a
subsequent stage, it has been mentioned that it was on an year to year basis.
He, on this basis, contends that since the post was available under the
Statutory Rules and the respondent-workman had been continuously
working with the appellants, the learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded
to consider the appointment of the respondent-workman under the Statutory
Rules granting him protection thereof. None of the Rules, as has been
provided for under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal)
Rules, 1987, have been followed, as no charge-sheet has been issued nor
any departmental inquiry held against the petitioner. The termination of
respondent-workman is violative of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it
is admitted that he had completed more than 240 days in each calendar
year. No compensation had been granted at the time of termination of the
services of the respondent-workman. Therefore, the order passed by the
4 of 6
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
learned Single Judge, being in accordance with law, do not call for any
interference.
Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties, and on going through the pleadings, we are unable to accept the
submissions of the counsel for the respondent-workman. The judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned herein, is based on
the premise that merely because a sanctioned post under the Rules is
available and the respondent-workman has worked as a Water Carrier
would not be enough for bringing it within the ambit of the Statutory Rules.
Had the appointment been made in accordance with the Statutory Rules
after following the mandate of the said Rules, the judgment as passed by
the learned Single Judge would be fully justified. That apart, it has come
on record and is not in dispute that each year, the appointment had been
issued to the respondent-workman for a period of 10 months which was
sanctioned every time separately by the competent authority. It was not a
continuous appointment all through. Merely because he has been appointed
on a fixed term on an year to year basis would not entitle him to the benefit
of the Statutory Rules. Similarly, keeping in view the fact that the
appointment of the respondent-workman was for a fixed term and that too
on contractual basis, the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 stands attracted. Since the appointment being of a
tenure appointment, the termination thereof would not attract the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination, therefore, of the
services of the respondent-workman cannot be said to be in violation of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5 of 6
LPA-329-2018 (O&M)
In the light of the above, we accept the present appeal and set
aside the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. The
writ petition, as preferred by the respondent-workman, stands dismissed.
CM-811-LPA-2018
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, the present
application does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of
as such.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
September 07, 2022.
sandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
