Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 7931 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr on 16 April, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110



         Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110
CWP-9455-2004(O&M)                                           1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

211                                        CWP-9455-2004(O&M)
                                           Date of Decision:16.04.2024

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

                                                         .... Petitioner

                                 Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR
                                     ....Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:    Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr.R.K. Arora, Advocate and
            Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate
            for respondent No.2

                    *****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

1.          Present writ petition has been filed by the Management-

Pepsu Road      Transport Corporation, against the award dated

24.03.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Labour Court, whereby

reference No.126 of 1998 filed under Section 10 (1) (c) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), has been

answered in favour of respondent No.2-Workman.

2.          This Court, while admitting the writ petition on

02.07.2004 had stayed operation of the impugned award subject to the

provisions of Section 17 B of the Act of 1947.

3.          Mr. R.K. Arora, counsel representing respondent No.2-

workman points out that the impugned award is dated 24.03.2004 and




                                  1 of 7
               ::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 20:39:07 :::
                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110



         Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110
CWP-9455-2004(O&M)                                             2

immediately thereafter, petitioner-Management had passed an order

dated 11.06.2004 (Annexure R2/1), whereby workman was reinstated

in the service in compliance to the award with continuity of service

and salary was also fixed after counting his annual increments during

the period of his termination. Not only this, the workman was

declared to be retired on 31.12.2001 on account of attaining the age of

superannuation i.e. of 58 years on 14.12.2001.

      For the sake of convenience, order dated 11.06.2004 is

reproduced herebelow:

                          '       Pepsu Road Transport           Corporation,
                          Bathinda Depot.
                          No.194/Admn. Dated 11.06.04
                                          ORDER

In compliance with the award dated 24.03.04 passed by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala termination order No. 555 Dated 22.07.92 of Sh. Amarjit Singh, Driver No. 59-A is hereby cancelled. He is reinstated in service in the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation with immediate effect. After granting him continuity of service and after counting his annual increments for the period of termination, his salary is 'being fixed but he will not be entitled for any back wages for the period of termination.

Sh. Amarjit Singh, Driver No. 59 A who had attained the age of 58 Years on 14.12.2001 is relieved from service of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation w.e.f 31.12.2001.

Endst. No: 1309 / Admn Sd/- General Manager, P.R.T.C Bathinda.

Dated:'

4. Immediately thereafter, on 18.06.2004 another order was

passed for withdrawal of the earlier order dated 11.06.2004.

For the sake of convenience, the order dated 18.06.2004 (Annexure R-

2/2) is reproduced herebelow:

' Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Bathinda Depot.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110

No.194/Admn. Dated 11.06.04 ORDER Order No. 194 / Admn Dated 11.06.2004 of this office passed in respect of Sh. Amarjit Singh Driver No. 59 - A in compliance with the award dated 24.03.04 passed by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala is hereby withdrawn with immediate effect because the competent authority regarding the appointment of this employee is the Hon'ble Managing Director, P.R.T.C Patiala.

Sd/-

General Manager, P.R.T.C Bathinda.

Endst. No: 1441 / Admn Dated: 18.06.04'

Thus, Mr. R.K. Arora, learned counsel for respondent

No.2-workman submits that by concealing both the aforementioned

orders, petitioner-Management succeeded in obtaining the order of

stay of operation of the impugned award dated 24.03.2004.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that

even the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 were never

complied with, during the pendency of the present writ petition.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties have agreed

to address their submissions on the merits of the case for its disposal.

7. Brief factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2-

Amarjit Singh (workman) raised an industrial dispute under Section

10 (1) (C) of the Act of 1947 against the order of his termination from

service and same was forwarded to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Patiala as reference No.126 of 1998.

8. After examining the record, learned Tribunal recorded its

findings that workman remained absent unauthorisedly for a period of

three months, but he has rendered his satisfactory service of 23 years

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110

to the Management (petitioner herein). Accordingly, by setting aside

the termination order, learned Labour Court reinstated him with

continuity of service, however, nothing was granted towards the back

wages. The explanation in regard to the absence from duty has been

given by the workman during proceedings that his wife was seriously

ill and therefore, he was looking after her.

9. It is a case where the petitioner has admitted his absence

from the office i.e. petitioner-Management, but said absence has been

attributed to the reason of illness of his wife. Learned counsel for

respondent No.2-workman relies upon the order dated 09.07.2007

passed by the Division bench of this Court, passed in CWP-18908-

2006, titled as 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another Vs.

Presiding oFficer, Labour Court and another' and submits that in

almost similar circumstances, the service period of around 21 years

was considered by the Labour Court qua the driver, who was

employed with PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (same

corporation) , when the reason for his absence was his own illness.

10. While taking note of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court, titled as 'Hussaini Vs. The Hon. The Chief Justice of High

Court of Judicature at Allahabd and others, AIR 1985 SC 75' and

'Ex. Const. Ranbir Singh No.323/SPT Vs. The State of Haryana

and others, 1999(1) RSJ 527', Hon'ble Division of this Court agreed

with the view of the Labour Court and thus, upheld that instead of

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110

dismissal from service, the employee may be taken to have retired and

be paid retiral benefits as per rules.

For the sake of convenience, order dated 09.07.2007

passed by the Division bench of this Court is reproduced herein

below:

'CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMAB Present: Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for respondents.

ORDER:

This petition challenges award of the Labour Court, directing the petitioners to release the retrial benefits to respondent No.2- workman by treating his period of absence as period of leave without pay Dispute was referred to the Labour Court at the instance of the workman. Claim of the workman was that he was appointed as Driver with the petitioners in the year 1978 and his services were terminated on 15.4.1999 without holding any proper inquiry.

Management took the plea that the workman absented from 28.5.1998 and after ex-parte inquiry, his services were terminated vide order dated 15.4. 1999, The Labour Court held that the allegation of willful absence of the workman after 28.5.1998 was duly proved, but since he was suffering from a serious ailment and had already attained the age of retirement, he was entitled to reinstatement without any backwages. As a result of reinstatement, he will be entitled to retirement benefits as per rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the workrnan was willfully absent, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the workman was entitled to any benefit.

Learned counsel for the respondent-

workman, however, submitted that the workman had already rendered 21 years of service and had become eligible for retirement benefits. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110

Hussaini v. The Hon. The Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others AIR 1985 SC 75 and a judgment of this Court in Ex.Const. Ran bir Singh No.323/SPT v. The State of Haryana and others 1999(1) RSJ 527 Even though the reasoning given by the Labour Court for holding that the workman was entitled to reinstatement, may be open to doubt, but even without going into the said question, we find that the workman had already rendered 21 years of service and was suffering from serious ailment on account of which he was absented. In these circumstances, the view taken by the Labour Court that instead of dismissal from service, he may be taken to have retired and paid retirement benefits as per rules, cannot be held to be suffering from any patent error so as to call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is dismissed.

July 09, 2007 sd/-Adarsh Kumar Goel Judge

Sd/- Ajai Lamba Judge'

11. If the view point taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench is

made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

arguments submitted by counsel for the workman are fortified,

because in present case also the plea taken by the workman is that his

wife was suffering from serious ailment and for that reason he

absented from the duty. It is also admitted position in the present case

that workman joined as Driver with PEPSU on 17.12.1969 and after

holding a departmental inquiry, he was terminated from service on

20.07.1992. Thus, the workman had rendered 23 years of service to

the Management and there is nothing on record to indicate any kind of

complaint of misconduct against the workman during the said period.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053110

Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:053110

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the

impugned award is modified to the extent that the order of termination

dated 20.07.1992 would be considered as ineffective and the

petitioner-Management would pass a fresh order, by considering the

workman to be compulsorily retired after rendering his service of 23

years.

Accordingly, all the retiral benefits available to him as

per the rules would also be extended, without any unnecessary delay.

                                              [SANJAY VASHISTH]
April 16, 2024                                     JUDGE
rashmi
      Whether speaking/reasoned                       yes/no
      Whether reportable?                             yes/no




                                  7 of 7