Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Kamaljit & Anr on 3 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No. : 2024:PHHC:061660
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CWP-13274-2014
Decided on : 03.05.2024
The State of Punjab and others
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kamaljit and another
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner - State of Punjab,
Department of Forests & Wildlife Chandigarh through its Secretary and
others, have challenged the award dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P-6), passed
by respondent No.2 - Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar (for
brevity, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby, Reference No.869 of 2002, under
Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'),
has been answered in favour of respondent No.1 - Kamaljit w/o Des Raj
(work-woman).
In the award (P-6), learned Tribunal held that the termination of
the work-woman is bad in law, and thus, entitled her to reinstatement on the
same post with continuity of service from October 1998, with 50% back-
wages from the date of demand notice.
2. Pleaded case of the work-woman is that she initially joined the
service of Management as 'labourer' in the year 1990, and continuously
worked till 31.12.2000. On the date of termination from service, w.e.f.
01.01.2001, she was drawing wages of Rs.2035/- per month. Since, she had
worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to her
termination; the Management was required to follow the principles of the ID
Act. Since, neither any notice, nor pay notice or retrenchment notice was
paid to the work-woman. Thus, her termination is illegal and in violation of
Section 25-F of the Act.
3. In the written statement filed by the Forest Department
(Management) dual pleadings were raised i.e.; in preliminary objections, it
was pleaded that Forest Department is not an 'Industry', and on merits, it
was pleaded that the work-woman has worked as daily wage labourer in the
Forest Nursery, Phillaur on piecemeal rates and payment of wages were
made to her accordingly.
4. On the first objection raised by the Management, while relying
upon the Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ
264, learned Tribunal held that said objection is not tenable, and already the
Forest Department has been interpreted as 'Industry' under the definition of
ID Act.
5. After examining the statements of the witnesses i.e. work-
woman as WW1, and Management's witness - Parmod Kumar, appeared as
MW1 and Sanjiv Kumar as MW2, learned Tribunal recorded its finding that
the stand taken by the Management's witnesses i.e. MW1 & MW2, is
inconsistent, because, as per MW1 - Parmod Kumar, work-woman joined
the services in October 1998 and was terminated on 01.01.2001, whereas, as
per the submission of MW2 - Sanjiv Kumar, work-woman worked from
July 1994 to October 1998.
From the said inconsistent statement, learned Tribunal appears
to have rightly reached to the conclusion that the factum of engagement in
service by the Management is well established. However, observing that
there is a violation of provisions of the ID Act, learned Tribunal held that the
work-woman has proved her services with the Forest Department from
October 1998 to 31.12.2000. Finding recorded by learned Tribunal, in
paragraphs No.13, 14, 15 & 16 of the impugned award (P-6), are reproduced
here-under:-
"13. I have taken into consideration the submissions of both the
sides. According to the statement of claim, she joined as
Labourer in the year 1990 and continued to work till 31.12.2000
but in her statement, she deposed that she continued to serve till
7.9.01 and her services were terminated on 8.9.01. According to
MW1 Parmod Kumar, the services of the claimant were engaged
in Oct., 1998 which were terminated on 1.1.01 as it was off
season. MW Sanjiv Kumar deposed that the work in the Forest
Department is seasonal one and there is no regular vacancy. He
also deposed that the claimant is gainfully employed. In his cross
examination, he denied that the claimant was employed from
1990 to 31.12.2000 and she was refused work on 1.1.01. He
deposed that she was asked to return on job as per letter Ex.M2.
14. According to MW Sanjiv Kumar, the claimant has not
worked from 199- to 31.12.2000 but the claimant was asked to
rejoin duty. The version of both the MWs is inconsistent as MW
Parmod Kumar says that claimant joined the service in Oct.,
1998 and her services were terminated on 1.1.01. MW2 Sh.
Sanjiv Kumar states that the claimant worked from July 1994 to
Oct., 1998. He has given details of the work done by the
workman Ex. Ml. In this way, one thing is established on record
that her services were engaged by the management.
15. Both the learned authorized representatives have pleaded
their case in their own way. Sh. J.S. Perhar submitted that the
plea of management that the claimant worked from April 1997 to
Oct. 1998 which is contrary to the statement of MW1 Parmod
Kumar. For the sake of repetition, it is again mentioned here that
according to MW1 Parmod Kumar, the claimant joined in Oct.,
1998 and she was refused work on 1.1.01 as the season was over.
On the basis of proceedings in the Lok Adalat dated 18.11.11, the
award was passed which was however, set aside vide order dated
19.10.12. Thus, it will not be viable to take note of the
proceedings of the Lok Adalat.
16 As per the available evidence, it has been evident on
record that the claimant joined the service of the management in
Oct., 1998 and worked till 31.12.2000. There is no evidence on
the file that she worked from 1990. The demand notice is dated
10.9.01 and this case is pending since then. When the claimant
worked from Oct., 1998 to 31.12.200, it was required by the
management to terminate her services in accordance with the
law which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the
termination of services of the claimant is held illegal. There is no
evidence on the file that she was gainfully employed though the
plea has been taken in the written statement. This Tribunal is,
however, of the view that in the era of rising prices, no person
can survive without doing anything. This, this Tribunal is of the
considered view that the claimant is entitled to 50% of the back
wages from the date of demand notice with continuity of service.
Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and
against the managements."
6. In addition to the observation made by learned Tribunal,
counsel representing respondent No.1 - work-woman, submits that the co-
workers of the work-woman, namely; Smt. Bachni, Smt. Bhajno, Smt. Piaro
and Smt. Shindo also, faced the similar controversy and the references under
Section 10(1)(C) of the ID Act, were answered in their favour by the
concerned Tribunal. While answering the references, learned Tribunal held
that there is complete violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, and thus, held
them entitled for reinstatement. However, by way of filing writ petitions i.e.
CWP No. 10002 (The State of Punjab and others vs. Smt. Bachni and
another) along with CWP Nos. 10026, 10019 and 10022 of 2014 (against
all the aforesaid four work-woman), before this Court, the Management
(State) could not succeed, and same were dismissed by this Court, vide
common order dated 07.08.2015.
However, recording the fact that the work-woman had attained
the age of superannuation and they had rendered 16 years of service and
remained out of job for almost 10 years, instead of maintaining the award
qua reinstatement, the same was modified by holding them entitled to `6.00
lakhs each, as compensation in all the aforesaid cases.
In this regard, the finding recorded by this Court in all the four
writ petitions, is reproduced here-under also:-
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : August 7, 2015
The State of Punjab and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Bachni and another
........ Respondents
The State of Punjab and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Bhajno and another
........ Respondents
The State of Punjab and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Piaro and another
........ Respondents
The State of Punjab and others
....... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Shindo and another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:- Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
Amit Rawal, J.
By this order I intend to dispose of CWP Nos.
10002,10019,10022 and 10026 of 2014 as common question of fact
and law is involved in all the cases. For the sake of convenience,
facts are taken from CWP No. 10002 of 2014.
The challenge in the present writ petitions is to the
award dated 6.11.2012 whereby the reference raised by the
respondent-workmen viz-a-viz their alleged termination and
demand notice has been answered in favour of the workmen and
they have been held entitled to compensation equal to three months
wages for each year i.e. w.e.f. 2003 till 2012 and entitled to be
reinstated on same post from which their services were terminated.
As per the award the department was also directed to consider the
case of the workmen during their employment from the date they
joined and pass an order viz-a-viz regularization within three
months from the date of passing of the ward as per government
guidelines.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab Submits that the Labour Court in granting the said relief
committed illegality and perversity, the demand notice was served
in the year 2003 and their services were terminated in 2001. The
workmen failed to discharge the onus that they completed 240 days
in a relevant year and they were appointed without following the
regular procedure, therefore continuity of service and back wages
could not have been given as they were having the status of daily
paid workers and now the workmen have crossed the age of
superannuation long time back, therefore the award is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
workmen have rendered services of almost 16 years and they have
faced the wrath of alleged termination for almost a decade. The
award of the Labour Court is fair, legal and justified and liable to
be upheld as the management while terminating the services of the
workmen did not resort to the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). It has
further been submitted that the Management did not produce the
record from March 1988 onwards and the story which was surfaced
in the cross examination was that it was destroyed. The muster rolls
for the year 1995 to 2000 were produced. Thus, intentionally the
Management withheld the muster rolls particularly from April 1988
onwards, therefore adverse inference is liable to be drawn. Only
record of five years was produced. The plea of the Management
that the workmen left the job at their own has not been proved on
record. Had it been so, nothing prevented the Management to issue
show cause notice, charge sheet, much less enquiry. It cannot be
lost sight of fact that during that period new workers had also been
appointed, therefore, there is violation of provisions of Section 25-
H of the Act. Since the workmen had already rendered 240 days
during the period they remained in service, the relief granted by the
Labour Court as aforementioned, in my view, is justified. Since all
the workmen have attained the age of superannuation, I do not
deem it appropriate to uphold the award viz-a-viz reinstatement.
This Court while issuing notice of motion had directed the State to
comply with the directions for payment of compensation for the
period w.e.f.2002 to 2012 which amounted to `60,000/-. It has
been submitted that the said amount has been deposited in the
Labour Court. Two workmen i.e. in CWP No. 10002 and 10026 of
2014 the workmen have died
wherein in other cases payment has been made. Since the workmen
had rendered 16 years of service and they remained out of job for
almost 10 years, compensation granted by the Labour Court is
liable to be enhanced. Accordingly, the workmen shall be entitled to
`6 lacs each as compensation in all the cases. It is made clear that
out of the awarded amount of compensation, the amount already
withdrawn/taken shall be adjusted.
The award of the Labour Court is modified. Keeping
in view the fact that the workmen had superannuated, the
Management is directed to make payment within a period of three
months from today, failing which it shall entail interest at the rate
of 9% per annum.
The writ petition stand disposed of.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
August 7, 2015"
7. Subsequently, the order dated 07.08.2015, passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court, in the aforementioned writ petitions, was
challenged by way of filing LPA Nos. 750 of 2016 (O&M) (The State of
Punjab and othrs vs. Smt. Shindo and another) along with LPA Nos.
751, 752 & 826 of 2016 (O&M), however, the same were also dismissed
vide order dated 22.08.2016, by the Division Bench of this Court, on the
ground of delay.
8. Since, the work-woman (respondent No.1) in the present case is
stated to be co-worker/co-employee of the aforementioned work-women, in
whose favour this Court had already modified the award by
awarding/enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.6.00 lakhs, I deem it
appropriate to take similar view point qua the present work-woman also,
because, she also stated to have attained the age of superannuation, and
therefore, order of maintaining the award qua reinstatement is not going to
serve any actual purpose.
As per the impugned award (P-6), the work-woman rendered
her services to the Management from October 1998 to 31.12.2000 i.e. for
about 2 years & 2 months. In view of these circumstances and to meet out
the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the lump-sum
amount of `3.50 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), as
compensation to be paid to respondent No.1 (work-woman), by the
Management.
Needless to say that the said lump-sum amount of compensation
would be towards all the claims awarded by learned Tribunal in the
impugned award (P-6), and the work-woman shall not be entitled to claim
anything else, in addition to the lump-sum amount of `3.50 lakhs as
compensation, as ordered by this Court.
The lump-sum amount of compensation would be paid by the
Management (petitioners herein) within a period of three months from today
i.e. on or before 04.08.2024, failing which, petitioners - Management would
be liable to pay the lump-sum amount of compensation of `3.50 lakhs along
with interest @ 6% per annum, from 05.08.2024 onwards.
With the aforementioned modification, present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
May 03, 2024
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
