Surinder Singh vs Presiding Officer And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 7519 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Singh vs Presiding Officer And Ors on 9 April, 2024

255                   IOIN-CWP-19757-1998 in
                      CWP-19757-1998

SURINDER SINGH V/S PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS

Present:      None.
              ****

              This case has been listed by the Registry for the purpose of

carrying out correction of case number mentioned in the judgement dated

04.04.2024, passed by this Court, while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.

19757-1998, titled as "SURINDER SINGH VS. THE PRESIDING

OFFICER,       INDUSTRIAL          TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR           COURT,

ROHTAK AND ORS".

              Perusal of the judgement dated 04.04.2024, reveals that in

para No.8 case number mentioned therein is "CWP-19575 of 1998",

instead of "CWP-19757 of 1998", and same has also been uploaded on

the web-portal of this Court.

              It seems that the aforementioned error, has occurred due to

over-sight and inadvertent typographical mistake.

              In view of above, it is ordered that case number mentioned

in the judgment dated 04.04.2024, in para No.8 , be read as "CWP-

19757 of 1998", instead of "CWP-19575 of 1998".

              After carrying out necessary correction in the main

judgement dated 04.04. 2024, the correct copy of the judgement be made

part of today's order, and the same be also uploaded on the web-portal of

this Court.

              Needless to say that already signed copy of the judgement

dated 04.04.2024, shall remain part of the paper book of CWP-19757 of



                                 1 of 6
              ::: Downloaded on - 11-04-2024 05:15:16 :::
 IOIN-CWP-19757-1998 in                                         -2-
CWP-19757-1998


1998, and at the end of the last page No. 4 thereof, a correction slip be

affixed by the concerned Branch by mentioning therein about the fact of

correction made in the case number vide today's order




                                                (SANJAY VASHISTH)
                                                      JUDGE
09.04.2024
rashmi




                                2 of 6
             ::: Downloaded on - 11-04-2024 05:15:17 :::
           Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:045860
CWP-19757 of 1998 and
CWP-2345 of 1999                               1
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

207                                      CWP-19757 of 1998

SURINDER SINGH                                            .... Petitioner

                                   Versus

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ORS
                                    ....Respondents

207(2)                                   CWP-2345 of 1999

STATE OF HARYANA                                       ....Petitioner

                     Versus
SURINDER SINGH AND ANR                                 .......Respondents

                                         Date of Decision: 04.04.2024

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:     Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Satish Singla, AAG, Haryana.
                    *****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

1. By way of this common order, both the aforementioned

writ petitions are being disposed of.

The relevant facts are being extracted from CWP-

19757 of 1998.

2. Petitioner-Surinder Singh, has filed the present writ

petition for setting aside of the impugned award dated 17.07.1998

(Annexure P-4) passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Rohtak, whereby reference No. 310 of 1994, filed under

Section 10 (1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the

Act of 1947'), has been partly answered in his favour.

3. Pleaded case of the workman before learned Tribunal

was that vide order dated 18.09.1992, 3 of 6 he was appointed as Driver with

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:045860 CWP-19757 of 1998 and

the Public Health Sub Division No.3, Rohtak-Management and

remained in service uptill 10.07.1993. Petitioner-workman also

pleaded that he had completed 240 working days in the office of the

Management during the preceding one year of his termination,

therefore, he could not be removed from the service without making

payment of retrenchment compensation and also making compliance

of the provisions of the Act of 1947.

4. In the written statement, the Management pleaded that

the workman was engaged on daily wages and worked as driver

against the stop-gap vacancy of Vehicle driver from 18.09.1992 to

30.11.1992, 01.01.1993 to 31.01.1993, 01.02.1993 to 28.02.1993 and

01.03.1993 to 30.06.1993 in different sub divisions at Rohtak.

However, while dealing with the evidence and other

material available on record, learned Tribunal reached to the

conclusion that the order of termination of workman from service is

neither justified nor in accordance with the provisions of the Act of

1947.

5. However, by recording a fact that during this period, the

post has been filled through regular recruitment and despite disclosing

of this fact during the recording of the evidence of Dalip Singh

(MW1), no effort was made by the workman to file replication to

challenge the regular appointment to give him priority over the new

recruitment, the direction for reinstatement on the previous post was

not passed, rather the workman was held entitled to receive 67% of

back wages from the period 11.07.1993 to 23.05.1994.

6. For the sake of convenience, relevant findings recorded

by learned Tribunal are reproduced 4 ofherebelow:

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:045860 CWP-19757 of 1998 and

"17. There is therefore no merit in the plea of the learned ADA for the management that no illegality has been committed by the management in relieving the workman from service on 10-7-93 due to the intentional absence of the workman from 1-7-93 to 10-7-93 without any intimation.

18. For the foregoing reasons it is abundantly clear that the management has committed illegality in terminating the service of the workman vide its letter dated 10-7-93 Ex.W-1 read with its letter dated 15-7-93 copy Ex.MW-1/2.

19. For the foregoing reasons I hold that the termination of workman from service is neither justified nor in order.

20. As regards the relief there is plea of the management in its written statement that regular person has joined against the vacancy in question with effect from 24-5-94 and in this position has not been rebutted by the workman either by filing replication in his statement as WW-1, and in this situation the testimony to the same effect of MW-1 Dalip Singh inspires confidence. According to the testimony of this witness MW-1 no Dalip Singh now/such vacancy exist on which the workman had been working under the management. In this situation the workman is no longer entitled to reinstatement on his previous post, but he is entitled to get 67% back wages for the period 11-7-93 to 23-5-94.

21. This issue is therefore decided accordingly.

Relief,

22. As a net result of my findings on issue no.1 above the reference is accepted partly and it is held that the workman is not entitled to his reinstatement on his previous post but he is entitled to receive from the management 67% of his back wages for the period 11-7-93 to 23-5-

94. The reference is answered and returned accordingly."

7. However, this Court deems it appropriate that in lieu

of denying the benefit of reinstatement, workman-Surinder Singh,

deserves lump sum compensation amount.

Therefore, the impugned award dated 17.07.1998

(Annexure P-4) is modified to the extent that, petitioner-Surinder

Singh(workman) would be entitled for a lump sum amount of

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac only), towards all his 5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:045860 CWP-19757 of 1998 and

financial claims accruing to him, by virtue of the award in

question, to be paid by the respondent(s)-Management, on or

before 03.06.2024.

In case of default/non-compliance to pay said amount

within the prescribed time period, respondnent(s)-Management shall

be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum over the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- with effect from the date of the judgment till the date of

actual payment.

8. With the aforesaid modification made in the impugned

award, the present petition i.e. CWP-19757 of 1998 stands disposed

of.

9. This Court is fully convinced by the reasoning given in

the impugned award. Nothing calls for any kind of interference in the

well reasoned findings given by the Tribunal. Therefore, CWP-2345

of 1999, titled as 'State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Singh and anr', is

dismissed.

                                              [SANJAY VASHISTH]
April 04, 2024                                     JUDGE
rashmi
      Whether speaking/reasoned                       yes/no
      Whether reportable?                             yes/no




                                  6 of 6