Punjab-Haryana High Court
Secy.To Govt.Pb.Etc vs Mohan Singh on 10 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
CWP-8585-2004(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207 CWP-19981-2002(O&M)
THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF PUNJAB, PWD (B& R),
PUNJAB CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND ORS
.... Petitioners
Versus
MOHAN SINGH AND ANR
....Respondents
207-2 CWP-8585-2004
MOHAN SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UNION
TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS
....Respondents
Date of Decision: 10.05.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
for the petitioner (in CWP-19981 of 2002).
for respondent(s) (in CWP-8585-2004).
Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate and
Mr. Vishal Gautam, Advocate
for petitioner-workman (in CWP-8585 of 2004)
for respondent No.1(in CWP-19981-2002).
*****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)
1. By way of this common order, the fate of the aforesaid
writ petitions shall be decided as both the petitions are arising out of
same award dated 28.02.2002.
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
CWP-19981 of 2002 has been filed by the Management
challenging the award dated 28.02.2002 passed in reference No.
13/1/4882/HII(4)/91/5945,whereby the order of reinstatement with
continuity in service has been ordered by learned Labour Court.
Another CWP-8585-2004 has been filed by Workman-
Mohan Singh against the award dated 28.02.2002, whereby workman
was reinstated but without back wages.
2. For the sake of brevity, facts are being extracted from
CWP-8585-2004.
Workman-Mohan Singh, was appointed as 'Mason' and
serving with the respondent-P.W.D., (B& R) Branch, Punjab Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh with effect from 15.02.1995 on daily wage
basis. His place of working was P.W.D, B & R Branch, Division No.2,
Kothi No.2444, Sector 39-C, Chandigarh. In the month of October,
1995, name of the workman was changed in muster roll from Mohan
Singh s/o Shri Bachan Singh to Shri Sardara Singh S/o Shri Bakshish
Singh.
3. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that the workman
was appointed on 15.02.1995 and was removed from service on
01.12.1995. It was further pleaded that the services of the workman
were terminated without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
compensation, thus, there is a complete violation of Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947'). It was
further pleaded that employees junior to the petitioner were retained
and he was terminated from services without any reason, thus, there is
violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947.
4. In the written statement filed by the Management on
factual aspect it was pleaded that the workman was engaged w.e.f.
01.02.1995 and not from 15.02.1995, on daily wage basis. The
workman was appointed for a short period against muster roll on the
wage of Rs.73 per day by Junior Engineer, namely, Shri Kirpal Singh,
who was Incharge of the work on 01.02.1995. It was also pleaded that
the workman was engaged or re-engaged from time to time and it is
the workman , who absented himself from duty for the complete
month of July, 1995 and ultimately stopped working w.e.f 17.10.1995.
Thus, the Management pleaded that it is a clear case of abandonment
of service and not of termination, as claimed by the workman.
5. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence,
learned Labour Court concluded that the workman has completed 240
working days in the office of the Management.
For the sake of convenience, relevant findings recorded
by learned Labour Court in paragraph Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are
reproduced herebelow:
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
"20. On the other hand learned
representative for the management has argued
that the workman was engaged on daily wage
basis on 1st February, 1995 worked up to 30th
June, 1995 then he did not report for duty
through out the month of July, 1995. He was re-
arranged on 1st August, 1995 and he worked up
to 16th October, 1995 and thereafter he has
abandoned the job. It is argued that the
workman has not completed 240 days. So, he is
not entitled to the protection of the provisions of
section 25 (F) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. It is
also argued that the present is a case of
abandonment of services and the authorities
with regard to the retaining of junior persons or
engaging fresh persons are not of any help to
the workman. it is further argued that the
workman has himself examined AW-2 Baljit
Singh who has specifically stated that he along
with the workman had been working privately
after and before their engagement with the
management. It is argued that in view of this
fact, the workman is not entitled to the back
wages even if this Tribunal passes an order for
reinstatement of the workman because from
evidence led by the workman itself it is
established that he had been gainfully
employed.
21. I have considered the above
submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
From the evidence led by the workman it is
established that workman has worked from Ist
February, 1995 to 16th October, 1995
continuously because from the statement of
document expert Jassy Anand, it is established
that the muster rolls for the month of July, 1995
bears the signatures of the workman and tailles
with the standard signatures of the workman on
other documents. There is no rebuttal to the
statement of AW. 5. If for arguments sake, it is
taken that the workman has worked from 1st
February, 1995 to 16th October, 1995 even then
he has completed 240 days of the services. His
termination was oral and he was not given any
notice period pay or retrenchment compensation
which amounts to illegal termination without
complying with the provisions of the section 25
(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has come in
evidence that junior persons namely Baljit Singh
and others were retained whereas the services of
the workman were terminated. Fresh persons
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
namely Kuldip Singh and Sukhdev Singh were
also engaged as Mason by the management
after termination of the services of the workman.
22. The claim of the management that it
is a case of abandonment of the services by the
workman is not established from the evidence
available on the file. The workman has
immediately served the management with the
demand notice. The demand notice is dated 15th
December, 1995 and the claim of the workman
that he has worked with the management up to
30th November, 1995. Had he abandoned the
services, then workman would not have served
the management with the demand notice
immediately after termination of his services.
Even during the course of reconciliation
proceedings the management has not offered the
workman to join duty. This fact has been
specifically admitted by MW-1 Kirpal Singh in
his cross examination. Thus, from the evidence
available on the file, it cannot be said that the
present is a case of abandonment of the services
of the workman. It is fully established that the
present is a case of termination of the services
of the workman in contravention of provision of
the section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, I find merit in the arguments of
learned representative for the management that
the workman has himself examined Baljit Singh
as AW. 2 who has stated in the examination-in-
chief that he along with workman had been
doing the private work of Mason and with the
contractor also before or after termination of
the services. So, the workman as gainfully
employed."
6. While recording the findings regarding violation of
Section 25 F of the Act of 1947, the facts and evidence have already
been examined by the Labour Court with the help of the report of the
handwriting expert, which opined that the admitted signatures of the
workman are matching with the disputed signatures, which are
available on the record of the Management. Not only this, in
paragraph No.21 there is specific finding that one junior employee,
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
namely, Baljeet Singh and some others were retained in service,
whereas, the services of the workman were terminated.
7. Despite the fact available on record that the junior
employees were working in the office of the Management, never any
offer of reinstatement was made by the Management, during the
proceedings before the Labour Court. This conduct shows the services
were terminated arbitrarily and without caring about the provisions of
law, which are enacted to protect the rights of the workman i.e.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. This Court has noticed that in the writ petition bearing
CWP No. 19981 of 2002 filed by the Management, operation of the
impugned award was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court vide
order dated 17.12.2002, subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of
the Act of 1947. The fact has also emerged during the course of
hearing before this Court that the workman was being paid back
wages uptill October, 2018, but thereafter never any amount was paid.
After getting instructions from the workman, who is
present in Court, counsel submits that the workman is 70 years of age.
Therefore, this could be the reason for not paying back wages w.e.f
October 2018, as the workman had attained the age of superannuation.
However, due to the stay of the operation of the impugned award,
workman was never reinstated in service.
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
9. Relying upon the ratio of judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in
LPA No.1334 of 2009, titled as, "Deputy General Manager
(Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur vs. Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court-I, Chandigarh and another" decided on 30.01.2014, and this
Court earlier in time in CWP-10925-2013, titled as BCH Electric
Limited vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and
another decided on 20.02.2024, I am of the view that the grouse of
the workman can be settled by directing Management to pay one time
full and final lump-sum amount of compensation, to the workman.
10. By noticing the fact that Workman had worked in the
office of Management from 15.02.1995 to 01.12.1995 i.e., for about
11 months, and the dispute being more than two decades old, this
Court deems it appropriate to direct the Management to pay a lump-
sum amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) as compensation to
workman, within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before
10.08.2024, failing which, Management would be liable to pay the
lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four
lacs) along with interest @ 6% per annum, from 10.08.2024
onwards.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065696
Neutral Citation No:2024:PHHC:065696
CWP-19981-2002(O&M)and
11. With the aforementioned observations, the present writ
petitions stand disposed of.
12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another
connected case.
[SANJAY VASHISTH]
May 10, 2024 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned yes/no
Whether reportable? yes/no
8 of 8
