Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deputy Commissioner (Collector), ... vs Labh Singh And Another on 30 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Judgment Reserved on:24.04.2024
Judgment Pronounced on: April 30,2024
Sr. Case No. Case Title Referen Date of
No Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) ce No. award
. before
Labour
Court
01 CWP- Deputy Com- Labh Singh 216 of 24.05.2017
23524 of missioner(Col- and another 2008
2017 lector), Ropar
(Punjab) and
others
02 CWP- Deputy Com- Sarabjit and 215 of 24.05.2017
23527 of missioner(Col- another 2008
2017 lector), Ropar
(Punjab) and
others
03 CWP- Deputy Com- Paramjit 217 of 24.05.2017
23538 of missioner(Col- Singh and an- 2008
2017 lector), Ropar other
(Punjab) and
others
04 CWP- Deputy Com- Jasvir Kaur 214 of 24.05.2017
23539 of missioner(Col- and another 2008
2017 lector), Ropar
(Punjab) and
others
05 CWP- Deputy Com- Naresh Ku- 220 of 24.05.2017
23540 of missioner(Col- mari and an- 2009
2017 lector), Ropar other
(Punjab) and
others
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2024 03:57:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -2-
06 CWP- Deputy Com- Satvinder 218 of 24.05.2017
23568 of missioner(Col- Kaur and an- 2008
2017 lector), Ropar other
(Punjab) and
others
07 CWP- Deputy Com- Amarjit Singh 213 of 24.05.2017
23578 of missioner(Col- and another 2008
2017 lector), Ropar
(Punjab) and
others
08 CWP- Naresh Ku- Presiding Of- 220 of 24.05.2017
1481 of mari ficer,Indus- 2009
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
09 CWP- Satwinder Presiding Of- 218 of 24.05.2017
1498 of Kaur ficer,Indus- 2008
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
10 CWP- Sarabjit Singh Presiding Of- 215 of 24.05.2017
1552 of ficer,Indus- 2008
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
11 CWP- Amarjit Singh Presiding Of- 213 of 24.05.2017
1618 of ficer,Indus- 2008
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
12 CWP- Jasvir Kaur Presiding Of- 214 of 24.05.2017
1621- ficer,Indus- 2008
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 02-05-2024 03:57:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -3-
13 CWP- Labh Singh Presiding Of- 216 of 24.05.2017
1624 of ficer,Indus- 2008
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
14. CWP- Paramjit Singh Presiding Of- 217 of 24.05.2017
1639 of ficer,Indus- 2018
2019 trial Tribunal,
Patiala and
others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
ARGUED BY:
For State/Management: Mr. Brijesh, Asst. A.G., Punjab.
For Workman(s): Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate
Ms. Kanika Toor, Advocate and
Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate
(in CWP Nos.1481,1498,1552, 1618, 1621,
1624, 1639 of 2019)
Mr. G.S. Saini, Advocate,
(in CWP Nos.23524, 23527, 23540, 23568,
23578 of 2017
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. All the aforesaid 14 writ petitions would decide the fate of
separate award(s) dated 24.05.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Patiala( hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), while
answering the references under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), as depicted in the
aforementioned table, whereby termination of the services of the
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -4-
workman(s) has been held illegal and bad in law i.e. in violation of
Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, and they have been entitled to be
reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages.
Out of aforementioned 14 petitions, petitions mentioned at
Sr. Nos. 01 to 07 have been filed by the Deputy
Commissioner(Collector), Ropar (Punjab) and others (Management), for
setting aside of the respective award(s) passed by the Tribunal, whereas
petitions mentioned at Sr. Nos. 08 to 14 have been filed by the
workman(s) seeking modification of the award by granting full back
wages.
2. Learned counsel for the the parties are in unison that the
decision of one writ petition, by examining one of the award passed by
the Tribunal, would cover all the issues involved in respective
references, which were referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. Moreso,
the facts of these petitions are identical.
Accordingly, to avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity,
the facts as pleaded in CWP No. 23524 of 2017, are being referred in
subsequent paras of this judgement, by treating the same as lead case.
3. Petitioners-Deputy Commissioner(Collector), Ropar, Punjab
and others (being Management) have filed the present writ petition
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -5-
challenging the award dated 24.05.2017(Annexure P-1), passed by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patiala, whereby reference
No.216 of 2008, under Section 10(1) (c) of the Act of 1947 has been
answered partly in favour of respondent No.1-Labh Singh (workman).
4. Pleaded case of the workman before the Labour Court is that
he worked with the Management as Data Entry Operator from 11.11.1991
to 30.06.1995. At the time of termination from service, workman was
drawing the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The services of the workman
were terminated w.e.f. 30.06.1995, without any notice, notice pay or
retrenchment compensation. Further pleaded that even, some of the new
employees junior to the petitioner are still working with the Management.
Thus, workman prayed for reinstatement in service with its continuity
and full back wages, as the alleged termination is bad in law and against
the principles of natural justice.
5. To counter the pleadings, Management filed its written
statement and pleaded that material facts have been concealed from the
Court by the workman and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
dispute. Broadly, it was pleaded that the services of the workman were of
contractual nature and for his removal, a proper procedure had been
adopted.
After filing of the replication by the workman, learned
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -6-
Tribunal framed following six issues, vide order dated 03.08.2010:
"1. Whether the services of workman, were
terminated illegally by the respondents?OPW
2. Whether the reference is not
maintainable?OPM
3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction
to entertain and try this reference?OPM
4. Whether the reference time barred?OPM
5. Whether the dispute between the parties is
not covered under the definition of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947?OPM
6. Relief"
6. At the stage of the evidence of the workman, Management
did not appear before the Labour Court and therefore, it was proceeded
against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2011. On moving an application
dated 13.09.2011 by the Management, the said ex-parte order was set
aside by recording the no objection of AR of the workman.
Again on 23.10.2012, respondents failed to appear in the
Court and thus, Management was again proceeded against ex-parte
resulting into the passing of the ex-parte award dated 01.04.2014 in
favour of the workman.
Again an application for setting aside of the ex-parte award,
was moved, which was was allowed on 21.12.2015, subject to the
payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- and thus, the reference was restored.
Instead of receiving the cost amount, workman filed a writ petition
bearing CWP-1404 of 2016, which was decided vide order dated
02.02.2016. Ultimately, issue reached before the Division Bench of this
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -7-
Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in LPA No.691 of 2016 and vide
order dated 05.04.2016, Hon'ble Divison Bench Observed as under:
"We thus allow this appeal in part and modify the
order dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned Single
Judge as well as the Labour Court-cum-Industrial
Tribunal dated 21.12.2015 and direct respondent
No.2 to 4 to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/- to the
appellant within one month from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. The Labour Court-cum-
Industrial Tribunal is directed to accord only
limited opportunities, i.e. not more than two or
three, to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to lead their
evidence"
7. After receiving the cost amount as imposed by the Division
Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court), the process of
recording of evidence started and after leading of evidence by both the
sides, learned Tribunal decided issue Nos.1 to 5 collectively.
8. While stepping into the witness box as WW1, workman
proved his pleadings and also proved the nature of work that he was
doing with the Mangement i.e. making entries of the land record of
District, Ropar and to sell that record (Jamabandis ) to the land owners on
cash payment (fee). Workman also deposed that he completed 240
working days of service in preceding one year from the date of
termination.
9. On the other hand, Management produced Major Gurjinder
Singh Benipal (MW1), who tendered his affidavit Ex.M1 stating therein
that the services of the workman were of contractual nature and thus,
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -8-
same being hit by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947, workman is not
entitled for any relief or regularization.
The Contract offer regarding Data Entry Operator dated
02.01.1992 and terms and conditions No.3 to 8 recorded in Ex.R1 are
necessary to be detailed hereunder:
"3. That you will be given Rs.2.50/- per
Khewat
4. That this is purely a contract job.
5. that after reviewing the performance in
first two months, the contract can further be
extended at the discretion of the undersigned.
6. That you have to maintain strict
discipline in the computer centre and any act
of indiscipline will result in termination of
contract. Absence from duty without prior
sanction will result in cancellation of contract
and you will be liable to pay Rs.500/- as
damages to the undersigned.
7. That the commencement of contract is
from 11-11-1991.
8. The offer does not vest any right on part
of operator to claim any preferential right for
further absorption."
10. From the material available on record, learned Labour Court
made its observation that from the cross-examination of MW1 and
document Ex.R1 i.e. contract offer issued by Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Ropar, it is clear that the contract commenced from
11.11.1991. From the deposition of the said witness, it also comes out
that workman worked on contract from 02.01.1992 to 30.06.1995 and
the said period was extended from time to time. Thus, learned Tribunal
conclued that workman had completed more than 240 days of service in
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -9-
preceding one year from the date of his termination. Attendance of the
workman was also proved from the affidavit Ex. W38. Qualifying of the
type test and undergoing of the "Nehru Rojgar Yojna Computer
Training" by the workman and his co-workers is also well proved from
the documents available on record as Ex.W1 to Ex. W37.
11. Management could not dispute the correctness of the
documents. Not only this, Labour Court also considered the letter (Ex.
W29), wherein it is mentioned that work of computerization of land
record was still incomplete because of lack of staff. Even, there was a
letter (Ex.W36) available on record , which shows that there is dire need
of creation of post of Data Entry Operator.
By considering several other circumstances, Labour Court
ultimately reached to the conclusion that the workman falls within the
definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947 and for the said purpose it
relied upon "Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 AIR
(SCW) 3455" . Relvant paragraph Nos.25 and 27 of the said judgment
are reproduced herebelow:
"25. In furtherance of the aforesaid
resolution, the respondent engaged the
appellant, who was already in its employment,
as a Clerk for a period of six months on contract
basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/- per
month At the end of six months, the respondent
passed another resolution dated 30.11.1995 and
again employed the appellant for a period of six
months from 1.11.1995 to 20.4.1996. This
exercise was repeated in 1996 and the
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 10 -
appellant's term was extended for six months
from 1.5.1996. However, his engagement was
discontinued w.e. 30.9.1996 without giving any
notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation
as per the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of
Section 25- F of the Act. It is true that the
engagement of the appellant was not preceded
by an advertisement and consideration of the
competing claims of other eligible persons but
that exercise could not be undertaken by the
respondent because of the ban imposed by the
StateGovernment. It is surprising that the
Division Bench of the High Court did not notice
this important facet of the employment of the
appellant and decided the writ petition by
assuming that his appointment/engagement was
contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. We may also add
that failure of the Director, Local Self
Government, Punjab to convey his approval to
the resolution of the respondent could not be
made a ground for bringing an end to the
engagement of the appellant and that too
without complying with the mandate of Section
25-F (a) and (b).
It has been further held as under :
"27. The plea of the respondent that the
action taken by it is covered by Section 2(00)
(bb) was clearly misconceived and was rightly
not entertained by the Labour Court because no
material was produced by the respondent to
show that the engagement of the appellant was
discontinued by relying upon the terms and
conditions of the employment".
12. Thus, by considering the facts in totality regarding the
completion of 240 working days by the workman in the preceding one
year till the date of termination; contract was extended from time to time
and work of computerization is still existing and not complete, this Court
is in definite agreement with the findings recorded by learned Labour
Court and in such a situation, Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act of 1947
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 11 -
would not be applicable.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the Management submits
that the Industrial Dispute is liable to be answered against the workman
also on the doctrine of delay and laches because, with termination of the
workman, cause of action, if any, had accrued to them in the year 1995
itself. However, all the seven references were referred for adjudication in
the year 2008. Thus, there has been an unreasonable delay of over 14
years in referring the dispute.
14. On this aspect, this Court finds that already learned Labour
Court was already conscious of the situation and therefore, has not
granted any monetary benefits towards back wages. In other words, there
is elaborative reason in the award for reinstatement of the workman in
service by granting notional benefit of continuity of service but no back
wages have been awarded. Therefore, while deciding the reference,
learned Labour Court has already maintained the balance by weighing the
scale of justice.
15. After going through the complete set of pleadings and the
reasons assigned in the award by learned Labour Court and also after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to
cause any interference with the award passed by the Labour Court.
Accordingly, all the 7 writ petitions filed by the Management and the 7
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058443
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:058443
CWP-23524 of 2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 12 -
writ petitions filed by the workman(s) are hereby dismissed.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications, in any, in the
aforementioned 14 writ petition are disposed of accordingly.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 30, 2024
rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
12 of 12
