Ranvir vs The Presiding Officer , Industrial ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 19744 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ranvir vs The Presiding Officer , Industrial ... on 7 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145269




CWP-15528-1999                   1

206   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-15528-1999
                                        Date of Decision:07.11.2024

RANVIR                                                    ......... Petitioner
                        Versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT-I, FARIDABAD & OTHERS
                                      ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana.

           ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of impugned

Award dated 11.01.1999 (Annexure P-4) whereby Labour Court has

answered the reference against him.

2. The petitioner joined respondent as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on

01.06.1984 and was retrenched on 02.09.1987. He served demand notice

and matter came to be referred to Labour Court which vide Award dated

20.07.1989 ordered to reinstate him with back wages. He was taken back

on 09.11.1989 (Annexure P-2) and paid back wages, however, came to be

again terminated on 01.11.1991. The matter again reached to Labour

Court which vide impugned award has declined claim of the petitioner.

3. On being confronted with date of termination and efflux of

time, Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate submits that grievance of the

petitioner would be redressed if this Court passes an appropriate order of

compensation.

4. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana submits that

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145269

petitioner was retrenched in 1991, thus, there is no possibility of his

reinstatement. He submits that he leaves it to this Court to consider

question of compensation keeping in mind findings recorded by Labour

Court.

5. The petitioner was terminated on 02.09.1987 and was

reinstated on account of orders passed by Labour Court. He was again

terminated and Labour Court dismissed his claim because he had not

completed 240 days during 12 months preceding the date of termination.

The petitioner concededly had worked with respondent from June' 1984

to September' 1987 and 09.11.1989 to 01.11.1991. The petitioner every

time could not be asked to complete 240 days. As soon as first order was

set aside, it was not just and fair on the part of respondent to again

terminate him on the ground that he has not completed 240 days or there

is seasonal work, however, the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be

reinstated.

6. Considering the length of service, efflux of time, last drawn

salary (Rs.1000/-), judgment of Supreme Court in 'BSNL v. Bhurumal',

(2014) 7 SCC 177, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to pay a

sum of Rs.1 lakh to petitioner within 3 months from today. If the

respondent fails to pay said amount within 3 months from today, it would

be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the expiry of said period.

                                                ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                       JUDGE
07.11.2024
Ali
                    Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                       Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                  2 of 2