Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh vs Garrison Engineer on 18 December, 2023
CR No.860 of 2017 (O&M)
1
2023:PHHC:159344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.860 of 2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 04.12.2023
Date of decision: 18.12.2023
Mohan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Garrison Engineer
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate
with Mr. B.P.S. Thakur, Advocate
and Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate
Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the
order dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the execution petition
filed by the petitioner has been disposed of being fully satisfied.
2. The brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that the
petitioner was appointed as Switch Board Attendant w.e.f. 12.04.1983
on daily wage basis and his services were terminated in the month of
January, 1987. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was
referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-II, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'),
wherein the following dispute was referred for adjudication:-
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
"Whether the action of the management of MES in
terminating the services of Sh. Mohan Singh, s/o Sh.
Gurbachan Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which
date?"
3. It was pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the services
of the petitioner/workman has been terminated without giving him any
compensation or serving 01 months' notice and the same is in violation
of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also pleaded
that the management terminated the services of about total of 70 daily
wage employees, including the present petitioner/workman w.e.f.
January, 1987. Award dated 05.01.2015 was passed by the learned
Tribunal, and the reference was answered in favour of the present
petitioner and the following findings were recorded:-
"The workman has specifically pleaded in para 1 of
the statement of claim that he was engaged on 12.4.1983
on daily wage basis and his services were terminated
w.e.f. January, 1987. The respondent management did
not controvert this fact in para 1 of the written statement
and rather admitted the same and it is only pleaded in
para 4 on merits that he did not complete 240 days in any
calendar year. Since the management itself admit that the
workman worked from 12.4.1983 to January, 1987, it is
for the management to prove by leading cogent evidence
that the workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar
year prior to the termination of his Services. Narinder
Singh has deposed about the days the workman worked
during the year 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but he did not
utter a single word about the days workman worked in the
year 1986 and therefore it cannot be said that the
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year
preceding the termination of his services in January
1987. Thus it is to be held that he completed 240 days of
continuous service, prior to the termination of his
services. No retrenchment compensation or notice was
issued to him as specified under Section 25F of the Act,
and as such, his termination is held to be illegal.
It is also not denied that services of the 70
employees including the workman were terminated in
January, 1987. All of them filed OAs before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which were dismissed by
common order dated 19.8.1992. The workmen, but not the
present workman, preferred SLP before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court who set aside the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the
management to consider the case in accordance with law
laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh vide order
dated 2.9.1996. In pursuance of the said order, the
management reinstated the other employees. Since the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set
aside, it was for the management to consider the case of
the present workman also. But no step was taken by the
management in this direction. It was contended that there
is a delay in raising the industrial dispute which is
sufficient to hold that claimant cannot claim any relief in
the present reference. Suffice it to say that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed the order in 1996 and thereafter
the co-workers, who were admittedly similarly situated as
the present workman, were reinstated. The workman
raised the industrial dispute and the reference was
received in the year 2000. Thus there is an inaction not
on the part of the workman but on the part of the
management and the workman initiated the proceedings
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
without any inordinate delay.
Therefore on the ground of parity and the fact that
termination of his services is not legal and he is entitled
to be reinstated in service. Since he did not file SLP
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only raised the
present dispute, he cannot claim back wages for the
period he remained out of service. Moreover there is
nothing on the file to suggest that he did not remain
gainfully employed during the period of his
discontinuance of service and he himself is totally silent
about this fact when appeared in the witness box. Thus he
is to be reinstated in service but without back wages.
In result, it is held that termination of the services
of workman is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated in
service but without back wages. The management is
directed to reinstate him in service within 2 months from
the publication of the award. The reference is accordingly
answered in favour of the workman. Let hard and soft
copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for
further necessary action.
(Kewal Krishan)
Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II,
Chandigarh."
4. Since the said award dated 05.01.2015 passed by the
learned Tribunal was not implemented, therefore, an execution was filed
by the present petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge,
Bathinda, and during the pendency of the revision petition, the
appointment letter dated 21.07.2016 was produced before the Court and
it was stated that the petitioner has been reinstated in terms of the
appointment letter dated 21.07.2016 and consequently, the execution
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
was disposed of being fully satisfied vide order dated 31.08.2016, which
reads as under:-
"Mohan Singh vs Garrison Engineer
Present: Sh. C.D. Arora, counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Mithu Ram Gupta, counsel for
respondent.
The learned counsel for the respondent has
produced copy of letter dated 2.8.2016 alongwith copy of
appointment letter dated 21.7.2016 issued in the name of
Mohan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, on behalf of
Garrison Engineer. Since in pursuance of Award dated
5.1.2015, Mohan Singh has been issued appointment
letter, as such, the present proceedings are disposed of
being fully satisfied.
Pronounced
Dated 31.8.2016 (Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa)
Additional District Judge,
Bathinda/31.8.2016"
5. The said order dated 31.08.2016 has been impugned in the
present revision petition.
6. In pursuance to various orders passed in the instant revision
petition, an affidavit of Rahul Rawat, Major, Garrison Engineer (Utility)
Bathinda Mill Station, Bathinda Cantt. Punjab, dated 25.11.2019, has
been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioner/Mohan Singh
has been reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions on
which the other similarly situated persons i.e. about 70 daily wage
employees, as mentioned in the award dated 05.01.2015, have been
reinstated and no discrimination has been made with the petitioner while
issuing his orders of reinstatement. Along with the said affidavit, an
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
appointment letter of one Sh. Lal Ji son of Sh. Barati Ram dated
26.06.1998, has been annexed. Yet another affidavit dated 30.11.2023 of
Sh. Vipin Chandra Rai, Garrison Engineer (Utility), Bathinda, Mill
Station, Punjab, has been filed wherein the particulars of the 20
individuals, out of total 70 individuals, whose services were terminated
in January, 1987, and the same is as under:-
Sr. No. Name & Father's Name Date of Appointment
1. Gurpreet Singh s/o Jawala Singh 26.06.1998
2. Hakam Singh s/o Surjit Singh 25.06.1998
3. Nanju Ram s/o Bhagat Ram 26.06.1998
4. Gurjant Singh s/o Jagtar Singh 26.06.1998
5. Harnek Singh s/o Harjit Singh 26.06.1998
6. Kashmir Singh s/o Nand Singh 25.06.1998
7. Mast Ram s/o Ganpat Ram 22.06.1998
8. Itwar Chand s/o Todar Mal 12.03.2007
9. Rai Singh s/o Diwari Lal 25.10.2002
10. Raman Singh s/o Moti Ram 26.06.1998
11. Gurpreet Singh s/o Rajinder Singh 25.06.1998
12. Budh Singh s/o Gurdev Singh 25.06.1998
13. Lalji s/o Barati Ram 26.06.1998
14. Toga Singh s/o Ram Singh 26.06.1998
15. Bagga Singh s/o Jarnail Singh 26.06.1998
16. Bhagwan Singh s/o Bikar Singh 26.06.1998
17. Rajesh Kumar s/o Lal Bir Chand 26.06.1998
18. Raj Kumar s/o Tej Ram 26.06.1998
19. Rajdev Yadav s/o Jhiaju Yadav 26.06.1998
20. Billu Singh s/o Kaka Singh 26.06.1998
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the
other employees, whose services were also terminated along with the
present petitioner in the month of January, 1987 have been ordered to be
reinstated in service w.e.f. 26.06.1998, therefore, the petitioner cannot
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
be discriminated as he has been reinstated in service vide appointment
letter dated 21.07.2016. He further submits that once in the award dated
05.01.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal, the reference has been
answered in favour of the petitioner on the ground of parity, he is also
entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 26.06.1998.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Division
Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.5515 of 2016, titled as
"Union of India and others vs Central Administrative Tribunal and
others", decided on 22.03.2016, vide which the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 08.10.2015 passed in O.A.
No.060/00391/2015 wherein the claims of the applicants in the said
O.A. with regard to their status as MPA/Lineman w.e.f. 26.06.1998, has
been upheld. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
approached the Tribunal belatedly to treat them as
MPA/Lineman w.e.f. 26.6.1998. The Tribunal took note of
such delay and has restricted arrears of pay to the period
of 18 months prior to the date of filing of the Original
Application in January 2014.
(5) The petitioners having accepted and
implemented the decision of the Tribunal passed in OA
No. 666/PB/2008 and have granted the status of
MPA/Lineman w.e.f. 26.6.1998 to the applicants of that
case. The decision relates to treating those Mazdoors as
MPA/Lineman who were appointed in the year 1998,
therefore, the principle laid down by the Tribunal, will
uniformly apply to each Mazdoor working in the
petitioner's department. In fact, the petitioners could have
suo moto taken a decision to extend the benefit of the
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
decision in OA No. 666/PB/2008 as a model employer
instead of driving each and every Mazdoor to the Court to
treat them as MPA/Lineman w.e.f. 26.6.1998. In this
regard, the Apex Court, Courts and Tribunal have held
that if a general principle is laid down, in so far as
extending service benefits to an employee, the same shall
be extended to each and every similarly situated
employee. Moreover, in the present petition, we have
noticed that juniors to respondents No. 2 and 3 were
extended the service benefit of equating Mazdoors as
MPA/Lineman. Therefore, even if there is a delay in
approaching the Tribunal by the respondents No. 2 and 3,
that would not come in the way of extending the benefit
which has been granted to similarly situated junior
employees of respondents No. 2 and 3. That apart, the
earlier decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order dated
8.10.2015 passed in OA No. 060/00391/2015.
(6) Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(7) No order as to costs."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
could not dispute the abovesaid factual aspect that the other co-
employees have been reinstated on various dates as has been mentioned
in the comparative chart, reproduced hereinbefore.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the case file.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Switch Board
Attendant on daily wage basis on 12.04.1983 and his services were
terminated along with 69 others employees, in the month of January,
1987. The other 69 employees approached the learned Central
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
2023:PHHC:159344
Administrative Tribunal by filing various OAs, which were allowed and
they were ordered to be reinstated in service and the said order became
final upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, the
reference of the present petitioner was answered in his favour by the
learned Tribunal vide award dated 05.01.2015 and on the ground of
parity, the termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal and he was
held entitled to be reinstated in service but without back wages. Since
most of the other employees have been ordered to be reinstated in
service w.e.f. 26.06.1998, therefore, the petitioner cannot be
discriminated and he is also entitled to be reinstated in service with
effect from the same date i.e. 26.06.1998 instead of 21.07.2016.
12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 31.08.2016, passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Bathinda is set-aside and the petitioner is held entitled to
be reinstated in service w.e.f. 26.06.1998 instead of 21.07.2016.
13. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
14. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to
back wages in terms of the award dated 05.01.2015, passed by the
learned Tribunal on his appointment w.e.f. 26.06.1998.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
18.12.2023
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MOHD YAKUB
2023.12.19 11:21
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of
this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh.
