Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Carbon & Chemical Ltd vs Presiding Officer, ... on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
212
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M)
Decided on : 23.04.2024
Oriental Carbon and Chemical Ltd.
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Gurgaon and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Arshnoor Singh Chugh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner - Oriental Carbon and Chemical Ltd., Dharuhera
(Rewari), has filed the present writ petition for quashing of award dated
13.10.1998 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Gurgaon (in short, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby, reference
No.195/89, filed under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for brevity, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of respondent No.2 -
K.C. Sharma (workman).
Learned Tribunal has held the workman (respondent No.2) to be
entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.
2. Through demand notice and claim statement, workman pleaded
that he joined the service as 'Fitter' with the Management on 01.05.1986,
and his services were illegally terminated on 15.12.1987. He was drawing
the salary of Rs.1050/- per month at the time of termination, which has been
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -2-
done in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, as neither any notice, nor
notice pay or retrenchment compensation amount has been given to the
workman.
In the written statement filed by the Management, it is pleaded
that the workman himself had submitted his resignation on 14.12.1987,
which was accepted on the same date i.e. 14.12.1987, after paying him full
and final payment.
3. In the replication, workman pleaded that his signatures were
obtained by the Management under duress and immediately, thereafter, he
had made complaints to the police and Labour Department, through
registered post.
4. After framing the issues on 13.02.1990, evidences were led by
the respective parties. Workman - KC Sharma appeared as WW-1 and
altogether denied his resignation and stated that resignation letter Ex.M-1
was not written by him. He further stated that his signatures over the
voucher (Ex.M-5) were forcibly obtained by the Management and that no
experience certificate was given to him.
5. Management examined its witnesses Mr. R.K. Krishnan as
MW-1, who produced the resignation letter, which was forwarded to the
Personnel Manager of the Company. However, in his cross-examination,
said witness of the Management stated that the resignation was not written in
his presence by the workman and Ex.M-3 is the photocopy of letter dated
14.12.1987, regarding acceptance of resignation of the workman. Another
witness of Management i.e. G.D. Sharma, who appeared as MW-3, for
proving the fact that vide voucher (Ex.M-5) payment mentioned therein was
made to the workman. In regard to the signatures over the resignation letter,
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -3-
Management examined witness Sh. Som Nath Aggarwal (Hand Writing
Expert) as MW-3, who after making comparison of the signatures, was
opined in favour of the Management by stating that all the disputed
signatures were written by the writer K.C. Sharma.
On the other hand, workman also examined one handwriting
expert namely; Naresh Kataria (WW-2), and as per his report (Ex.WW-
2/11), he opined disputed signatures marked Q-1 to be forged one.
6. Since, it is settled law that the opinion of the handwriting expert
is a weak evidence and can never be conclusive because it is, after all
opinion evidence and same cannot be made the sole basis for deciding the
real issue. Without getting influenced or impressed with the reports of the
handwriting experts produced by both the sides, learned Tribunal has also
done certain exercises by itself examining the admitted signatures and
disputed signatures over the resignation letter.
7. Learned Tribunal found that Ex.M-4, Ex.M-5 & Ex.M-6, are the
admitted signatures of the workman. Disputed signature on comparison
does not seem to be same. Learned Tribunal also noticed that signatures of
the workman were obtained on the basis of knife and revolver and on the
comparison, learned Tribunal concluded that the admitted signatures does
not correspond with the disputed signatures.
8. For answering the reference in favour of the workman, learned
Tribunal examined the issue from another angle that if the workman had
submitted his resignation, why the Management had paid to the workman.
The contents of Ex.M-4 and Ex.M-5 reflects that amount of Rs.890/- were
paid in lieu of one month notice. In fact, taking note of all the aspects, it
seems that the Management wanted to remove the workman from job by
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -4-
giving him one month notice pay. It is only after change of mind, the story
of resignation was prepared and produced by the Management. It has also
been found that the reason to target the workman was simply that he was an
active member of the labour union, as was admitted by the witness of the
management, namely, R.K. Krishnan (MW-1).
9. In the totality of the circumstances, learned Tribunal found that
there is nothing in the story put-forth by the Management, and therefore,
same being not believable, the reference has been answered in favour of the
workman. Thus, finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is hereby
maintained to the extent of committing violation of Section 25-F of the ID
Act, by the Management.
10. However, counsel representing both the sides submit that
workman had rendered his services to the Management for a period of 19
months i.e. from 01.05.1986 to 14.12.1987. He was drawing a salary of
Rs.1050/- per month at the time of termination. After filing of the present
writ petition, since the year 1999, workman had been receiving the last pay
drawn i.e. Rs.1050/- per month, even he continued to receive the salary for
three more years after the date of retirement, because after attaining the age
of superannuation, workman had already retired in October, 2015.
Thus, counsel for the petitioner - Management, submits that in
any case, the reinstatement with continuity in service, would not be possible,
for an employee, who served for a short period and that too, more than 35
years back. Not only this, workman has been receiving the amount under
Section 17-B of the ID Act uptill September, 2018, whereas, actual date of
retirement was October 2015, after attaining the age of superannuation.
Thus, total amount of Rs.31,331/- has been paid in excess to the workman.
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -5-
Therefore, for settling the grouse of the workman (respondent
No.2 herein), one time lump-sum compensation amount can be ordered to be
paid in terms of the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. vs. Ghanshyam Sharma,
2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 5280 : Law Finder Doc Id # 1273657. The
relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
"14. In a case of this nature, and having regard to the fact that
many decades had passed in between with no evidence adduced
by the respondent that whether he was gainfully employed from
1977 onwards or not, the Labour Court should have awarded
lump sum money compensation to the respondent in lieu of the
relief of reinstatement along with payment of back wages and
continuity of service by taking recourse to the powers under
Section 11−A of the Act, rather than to direct his reinstatement
with all consequential benefits.
15. In other words, having regard to the peculiar nature of the
respondent's appointment and rendering of services by him for a
very short duration (just 240 days only) and with no evidence as
to whether he worked for gains or not after his services came to
an end in 1977, this was a fit case where the Labour Court
should have awarded lump sum compensation to the respondent
instead of directing his reinstatement in service with
consequential benefits. The Labour Court was empowered to
pass such order by taking recourse to the powers under Section
11−A of the Act. This has also been the view of this Court in such
type of cases. (See− Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic)
Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal Assistant Engineer Rajasthan
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -6-
Development Corporation vs Gitam Singh 2010(2) S.C.t. 609 :
(2010) 6 SCC 733 and Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan
Development Corporation & Ors. vs. Gitam Singh, 201392)
S.C.T. 30 : (2013) 5 SCC 136).
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal in
part and while modifying the impugned order and the award of
the Labour Court, direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.
50,000/− in lump sum to the respondent (employee) by way of
compensation in lieu of respondent's right to claim reinstatement
in service.
17. The amount of compensation is fixed by this Court after
taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case
including the fact of making payment to the respondent by way of
monthly salary during pendency of the writ petition/intra court
appeal by the appellant under Section 17−B of the Act. In our
view, it is a reasonable compensation in the facts of this case.
18. Let the amount of Rs.50,000/− be paid to the respondent
by the appellant within three months from the date of this order."
11. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
material available on record., therefore, after considering the totality of the
circumstances, while maintaining the award only with respect to the
violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, the other findings are modified, and
the workman would be paid lump-sum amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs, as
compensation, because, he was forced to be out of job for last more than 36
years.
Besides, considering the agony and pain of the workman, the
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:055377
CWP-4740-1999 (O&M) -7-
total amount of compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs towards all the claims as
granted under the impugned award would be paid by the Management
(petitioner herein) within a period of three months from today i.e. on or
before 27.07.2024, failing which, petitioner - Management would be liable
to pay the lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs along with
interest @ 6% per annum, from 25.07.2024 onwards.
12. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, the writ
petition stands disposed of, in the above terms.
Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 23, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
