Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjiwan Singh vs Presiding Officer And Ors on 24 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-1068-2018
Decided on : 24.01.2023
Jagjiwan Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, District Court Patiala & others
......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr.Vishal Sauda, Advocate, for
Mr.Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Deepali Puri, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated
04.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-28441-2017 titled
Jagjiwan Singh Vs. Presiding Officer & others, whereby challenge to the
award dated 17.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) wherein only compensation of
Rs.40,000/- had been granted, was repelled. The learned Single Judge found
that the appointment was on contractual basis for a period of 6 months to the
post of Chungi Clerk. Keeping in view the fact that the appointment was not
by following proper procedure and that he had not been appointed on regular
post after inviting applications from eligible candidates, the claim for
reinstatement with full back wages was denied to the appellant.
A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the
appointment was from 09.06.1998 to 31.03.1999 and he was drawing a
salary of Rs.1690/- per month. Resultantly, the claim petition had been filed
wherein the defence was that he was engaged on temporary basis vide
1 of 3
LPA-1068-2018
resolution dated 30.09.1998 which had been suspended by the Deputy
Director, Local Government which order was not interfered with by the
higher authorities upto the Director and resultantly, his services were
dispensed with. It is, thus, apparent that the appointment was for a brief
period of 9 months. In such circumstances, the Labour Court had awarded
Rs.40,000/- as compensation by noticing that no notice for termination had
been issued and thus he was entitled for the benefit under the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Keeping in view the fact
that the post was not sanctioned and his engagement was contrary to
statutory rules, the compensation had been awarded.
Keeping in view the fact that the service was only for a period
of 9 months, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely
covered by the judgments of the Apex Court taking the consistent view to
grant compensation for short service, as has been noticed in Haryana Urban
Development Authority Vs. Om Pal, (2007) 5 SCC 742 wherein
Rs.25,000/- was granted for the service of one year whereas in Uttaranchal
Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C.Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353, for a
period of 2 years, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was granted. Similarly, in
Asst.Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs.
Gitam Singh, 2013 (1) SCR 679, the said view was followed while noticing
that the service was of 8 months and thus, compensation of Rs.50,000/- was
granted. Similarly, in Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs.
Ghanshyam Sharma, 2018 (18) SCC 80, for a period of one year,
compensation of Rs.50,000/- had been granted. In K.V.Anil Mithra &
another Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & another, 2021
(4) SCT 415, for a period of little over 4 years, amount awarded was
2 of 3
LPA-1068-2018
Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement and backwages of 50% which was
granted and accordingly, modified. Thus, for short period of employment
which are not regular in nature, compensation as awarded is the settled
principle.
Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner, keeping in
view the fact that the Apex Court has time and again held that interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only to be done if there is a
legal lacuna in the award and the Writ Court is not to sit as a Court of
Appeal. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal
stands dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
24.01.2023 JUDGE
sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
