Punjab-Haryana High Court
Executive Engineer East Division Pseb ... vs Pawan Kumar And Ors on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136628-DB
LPA-2158-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-2158-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Date of decision: 25.10.2024
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST DIVISION PSEB
NOW PSPCL, JALANDHAR ..Appellant
Versus
PAWAN KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
* * *
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
CM-4730 & 4729-LPA-2017
1. For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of
delay which are supported by the affidavits, the application are allowed.
2. The delay of 157 days and 3 days in refiling and filing the
appeal, respectively, is condoned.
LPA-2158-2017
3. This intra Court appeal has been filed to challenge the
correctness of learned Single Judge's judgment passed on 22.03.2017,
which in turn has upheld the Labour Court's award passed on 15.02.1996,
directing the reinstatement in service of respondent No.1 with 1/3rd back
wages.
4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are as under:-
Respondent No.1 has not only attained the age of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136628-DB
LPA-2158-2017 (O&M) -2-
superannuation and therefore, retired but he has also
passed away. He joined as a driver on work charge basis
on 18.11.1986, however, he was absent from duty
between 16.07.1990 to 16.08.1990. Despite direction to
resume duty as per telegram dated 16.07.1990,
communication dated 17.07.1990, telegram dated
18.07.1990, communication dated 18.08.1990 and
memorandum dated 03.08.1990, he did not join the duty.
On 16.07.1990, the Management informed respondent
No.1 that he was no longer required in service and was
being served with a 30 days notice, whereupon, with
effect from 16.08.1990, his services would be deemed to
have been retrenched. He was also informed to collect
compensation amounting to Rs.3,106/- from the office of
the appellant on the last day of notice period. This notice
was served personally upon respondent No.1 but he
refused to accept the notice, which was subsequently,
sent by registered post but was received back
'Undelivered' as he refused to accept the same. On a
demand notice, the matter was referred to the Labour
Court, Jalandhar. Upon appreciation of evidence, the
reference was answered in favour of the workman and he
was held entitled to reinstatement in service with 1/3rd
back wages.
5. In the Management's writ petition, originally reinstatement was
stayed, which remained in force for nearly 21 years, but was dismissed with
cost of Rs.25,000/- by learned Single Judge to defray litigation expenses.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136628-DB
LPA-2158-2017 (O&M) -3-
6. On 13.11.2017, the Division Bench passed the following order:-
"Contends that compensation would have been a more
feasible course to be adopted considering the length of
engagement i.e. 3 years and the fact that the workman is
now due to attain superannuation.
Notice of motion for 7.3.2018.
In the meantime, direction qua reinstatement shall
remain stayed subject to appellants' depositing the
amount of Rs.3 lacs without prejudice to the rights of
either parties before the Labour Court Tribunal."
7. Pursuant thereto, the Management deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with
the Industrial Tribunal, Jalandhar, which was directed to be kept in a Fixed
Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the bank.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Rs.3,00,000/-
has already been deposited, which has carried interest from 2018. He
submits that with the passage of time, respondent No.1 cannot be reinstated
because he not only attained the age of superannuation but has also expired.
He submits that under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short '1947 Act'), respondent No.1 has been paid a sum of more than
Rs.4,00,000/-. He submits that impugned order deserves to be modified
accordingly.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for legal representatives of
respondent No.1 has contested the appeal on the ground that respondent is
entitled to reinstatement because he died after attaining the age of
superannuation.
10. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court now
proceed to decide the matter.
11. It is evident that respondent No.1 worked only for a period of
three years and eight months, thereafter, he absented from duty and he never
came forward to resume duty despite repeated communications. Technically,
the retrenchment compensation was not paid in accordance with Section
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136628-DB
LPA-2158-2017 (O&M) -4-
25-F of 1947 Act, hence, there is no substantive error in the judgment
passed by the Labour Court, however, at this stage the Court is required to
decide the dispute in accordance with law. The relief of reinstatement in
service is not automatic and universal rule. Reliance can be placed upon the
General Secretary Coal Washeries Workers Union Dhanbad Vs.
Employers in relation to the Management of Dugda Washery of M/s BBL,
(2016) 16 SCC 148. The respondent was not permanent employee but was
contractual employee. There is no evidence to establish that the
Management retained junior drivers to respondent No.1. No doubt, there is a
violation of mandatory provision of Section 25-F of 1947 Act, however, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation shall serve the ends
of justice.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge is substituted and legal representatives of respondent
No.1 are held entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with
interest, which is lying deposited in Labour-cum-Industrial Tribunal,
Jalandhar. The payment of more than Rs.4,00,000/- during the pendency of
the appeal, as required under Section 17-B of 1947 Act cannot be adjusted
towards the compensation payable in lieu of relief of reinstatement.
13. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is
modified and the present appeal is disposed of.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL) (SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
October 25th, 2024
Ayub
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
