Punjab-Haryana High Court
Indian Red Cross Society, Faridkot vs Rekha Rani And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
NISHA
LPA-2030-2023 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:054941-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
115 LPA-2030-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, FARIDKOT
.. Appellant
VERSUS
REKHA RANI AND ORS.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
3K OK 3K ok
DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(QRAL)
(1) The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 06.07.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing
the appellant's writ petition filed by it to challenge therein Award dated
03.02.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda (for short -- the
Tribunal), through which Award the respondent-workman's claim had been
allowed and she was ordered to be reinstated in service along with 50%
backwages from the date of termination of her services till the date she
would join her duty.
(2) The first issue raised before the learned Single Judge was that
the appellant-Society did not fall within the definition of 'Industry' as
defined under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short --
2024.05.06 09:57
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
NISHA
LPA-2030-2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054941-DB
the Act). The learned Single Judge rejected this plea on the ground that in
this regard the appellant had neither led any evidence before the Tribunal
nor raised any worthwhile submissions before the learned Single Judge.
(3) The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant before
the learned Single Judge was that the respondent-workman was employed
on contract basis and that there were several breaks in her service. Thus,
respondent-workman having not served continuously was not entitled to the
relief claimed by her. After examining the record, the learned Single Judge
found that no evidence to this effect had also been produced by the
appellant before the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge further found that
one of the appellant's witnesses RW-1 Gurmit Singh, while appearing
before the Tribunal, had admitted in his cross-examination that the
respondent-workman had worked with the appellant from 01.07.1998 to
30.04.2018. On the basis of the above, the learned Single Judge upheld the
findings returned by the Tribunal holding the respondent-workman to be in
continuous service of the appellant for about 20 years.
(4) With regard to the third and final contention raised on behalf of
the appellant questioning the respondent-workman's work and conduct
dis-entitling her to any relief was also rejected by the learned Single Judge
as in the present case the services of the respondent-workman had not been
terminated by the appellant on the ground that respondent-workman's work
and conduct was not satisfactory and that to prove that the respondent-
workman's work and conduct was not good, the appellant had also not
conducted any inquiry.
(5) On behalf of the appellant, the afore three submissions have
been reiterated before us.
2024.05.06 09:57
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
LPA-2030-2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:054941-DB
(6) After carefully examining the afore discussed reasons given by
the learned Single Judge to reject the submissions made on the appellant's
behalf, we have found no error, in fact and in law, in the impugned
judgment.
(7) Dismissed.
(8) All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE
April 23, 2024
Nisha Yadav
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
NISHA
2024.05.06 09:57
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
