Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swami Nath vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 CWP-1936-1999
Decided on:02.07.2024
Swami Nath .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari,Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Singla, Asst. A.G., Haryana.
*****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)
1. Petitioner-Swami Nath(workman) filed the present writ petition
by challenging the award dated 03.09.1996 (Annexure P-9), passed by the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad, whereby reference No.
84 of 1993 filed under Section 10 (1) C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for short, the Act of 1947'), is decided against him by not granting any
relief.
2. Workman-Swami Nath, was appointed on the post of 'Baildar' in
office of Sub Divisional Officer, Department of Public Works Department
(Building &Roads), Ballabgarh, Faridabad with effect from June, 1989 and
worked there till 20.03.1991. At the time of dismissal from service, the
workman was getting salary of Rs.950/- per month. Suddenly, without
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -2-
paying any retrenchment compensation and issuance of show cause notice,
the workman was terminated from the services and he was never allowed to
continue in service after 20.03.1991.
This way, respondent No.1 by issuing a demand notice dated
01.10.1992 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour
Court for its adjudication.
3. Pleaded case of the workman before the Labour Court is that his
removal from services is in violation of law and against the principle of
natural justice.
4. In the written statement filed by respondent-Management, it was
specifically pleaded that the workman was employed on daily wage basis
and in the temporary muster roll, it was also recorded that he was paid
Rs.24/- to Rs.30.50/- per day as daily wage from time to time. It was
further pleaded that consolidated amount of salary of Rs.950/- per month
was never paid to the workman. It is on account of his absence since
December, 1990 that his name never appeared on temporary muster roll.
5. In the replication filed by the workman, the claim raised through the
demand notice was reiterated.
6. After framing of the issues, examining of the evidence available on
record and also by holding that the respondent-Management is well covered
within the prescribed definition 'Industry', in paragraph No. 10 of the
impugned award, learned Labour Court observed that the services of the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -3-
workman were terminated without even payment of retrenchment
compensation and issuing of any notice, thus, concluded that such a
termination is in utter violation of the provisions of law i.e. Section 25-F of
the Act of 1947.
7. Proceeding further, learned Labour Court recorded a finding that
workman is not entitled for the benefit of reinstatement in service because
his initial appointment is not in accordance with rules. As per Rules of
recruitment a person should not be more than 25 years of age on the date of
recruitment. Infact, workman-Swami Nath entered into service in the month
of May 1986 and at that time his age was not less than 35 years. Therefore,
labour Court expressed its doubt, whether it can advise the State
Government to retain the workman, who at the time of recruitment was of
the age of more than 35 years. Thus, by holding that the initial appointment
is bad in law, workman was denied the relief of reinstatement in service.
Though, the observation in regard to the violation of Section 25-F of the Act
of 1947 is clearly mentioned by Labour Court in its award dated
03.09.1996.
8. Thus, following issues are before this Court for consideration :
(i) whether the initial appointment of an employee (workman) in the
Department, was not by following the due process of law; and
(ii) whether such workman can be denied the protection of beneficial
legislation i.e. in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947;
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -4-
In that regard the reference is required to be given to the judgment
passed by this Court in CWP-17272 of 2017, titled as, ' Hari Chand Vs.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad and another', wherein this
Court placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, 'K.V. Anil
Mithra and another Vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and
another', 2022 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 85: Law Finder Doc Id #
1901762, and observed that for the purpose of deciding the rights of the
workman, for which protection has been provided under the Act of 1947,
manner/nature of appointment cannot be treated as a condition precedent.
While dealing with the scheme of the Act, Hon'ble the Apex Court
categorically held that the workman employed even as a daily wager or in
any capacity, once completes 240 days in preceding 12 months from the
alleged date of termination, can be terminated from his services only after
compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act of 1947 and non-
compliance of the provisions of law, would render the termination void ab-
initio.
9. The principle laid down by this Court in Hari Chand's case (Supra),
as guided by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the case of K.V. Anil
Mithra's case (Supra), is applied to the facts and circumstances of the
present case also and thereupon, this Court is unable to draw any distinction
in the circumstances, which are there in the case of K.V. Anil Mithra's case
(Supra). Once, the Labour Court had reached to the conclusion that the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -5-
termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the act of 1947 and also against
the principle of natural justice, workman is ought to have been reinstated by
setting aside of termination order. However, looking at the facts and
circumstances that the workman served for the period from June 1989 to
March 1991 and it was long back when his services were terminated. Most
likely, by now he must have crossed the age of superannuation and would
not be able to join back the duty, merely by ordering for reinstatement in
service.
10. Moreover, during the course of hearing of the arguments, Court is
informed by Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate representing the petitioner that the
workman had expired about 14 years ago and vide order dated 19.01.2010,
passed by this Court, his only son, namely, Durga Parshad, was impleaded as
his legal representative. Therefore, any benefit, if granted except of the
monetary benefit would not be a real relief to the victim and thus, prays for
grant of a lump sum amount of compensation to his son i.e respondent
No.1(i), namely, Durga Parshad.
11. For the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation, this Court
could have taken a more liberal view in case, the compensation was to be
disbursed to the workman himself or to his widow, being the legal
representative. However, in the present case, the sole legal representative is
the son of the workman, who in all probability might be living his life hale
and hearty. Therefore, the adequate amount of compensation for which the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082141
Neutral Citation No:
CWP-1936-1999 -6-
able-bodied son can be held entitled after the death of his father-petitioner in
the present case is assessed as Rs.1,50,000/- ( Rupees one lac fifty thousand
only).
12. With the aforementioned observations, the present writ petition is
partly allowed and the relief of reinstatement of workman is altered
with the relief of granting of a lump sum amount of compensation,
payable to his sole legal representation i.e. Durga Parshad (son of the
deceased petitioner).
13. Therefore, Management is directed to pay a lump sum amount of
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-(one lac fifty thousand), to the sole legal
representative of the deceased-workman, namely, Durga Parshad within a
period of three months i.e. on or before 02.10.2024 from the date of this
order. It is further clarified that in case, the said payment is not made within
the stipulated time, the same shall be paid alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum w.e.f. 02.07.2024,till its actual payment.
With the aforementioned terms, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
[SANJAY VASHISTH]
02.07.2024 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
6 of 6
