Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Muncipal Committee, Assandh And Others on 31 January, 2025
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017443-DB
1
LPA-377-2018
220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-377-2018
Date of Decision: January 31, 2025
Ranbir Singh ..... Appellant
Versus
Municipal Committee, Assandh and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed challenging order dated 08.11.2017
passed by learned Single Bench whereby CWP-19751-2012 filed by
respondent Municipal Committee, Assandh has been disposed of with the
modification in Award dated 28.03.2012 passed by learned Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (for short - 'Tribunal'). Learned
Tribunal vide said Award dated 28.03.2012 directed reinstatement of appellant
(workman) with continuity of service and 50% backwages from the date of his
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017443-DB
LPA-377-2018
demand notice dated 23.11.2004. Learned Single Bench, however, found the
workman to be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- only.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that
present appellant raised an industrial dispute while submitting demand notice
dated 23.11.2004, wherein he alleged that he was appointed by Executive
Officer, Municipal Committee, Assandh on 13.04.2002 as Driver and he
worked uptill 12.12.2002. His work and conduct was to the satisfaction of his
superiors during tenure of his service. However, it was claimed that his
services were terminated on 12.12.2002 orally without any notice or pay in
lieu thereof alongwith retrenchment compensation. Violation of provisions of
section 25 F, G and H of Industrial Disputes Act (for short - 'the Act') was
alleged. He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and full
backwages. Reference was placed before learned Tribunal. Claim statement
attached as Annexure P1 was submitted. It was duly controverted by way of
written reply by Municipal Committee, Assandh while taking a plea that
workman was engaged by Municipal Committee, Karnal on purely contract
basis for a period of 89 days. It was claimed that the workman was not an
employee of Municipal Committee, Assandh but was engaged by Municipal
Corporation, Karnal. Learned Tribunal on considering the evidence on record,
facts and circumstances concluded that there was violation of provisions of
Sections 25-G and H of the Act. It was, accordingly, directed vide Award
dated 28.03.2012 that workman be reinstated with continuity of service and
50% backwages from the date of demand notice i.e. 23.11.2004.
3. Aggrieved therefrom, Municipal Committee, Assandh filed
CWP-19751-2012, assailing Award dated 28.03.2012.
4. Learned Single Bench held as under:-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017443-DB
LPA-377-2018
" Admittedly, respondent No.2 has no right to continue to hold
the post of driver either in Karnal or Assandh as he was appointed
only for 89 days and it was extended from time to time.
Respondent No.2 was appointed by the Municipal Council Karnal
even though the Deputy Commissioner Karnal has drafted the
respondent services to Municipal Committee Assandh.
Respondent No.2 should have impleaded Municipal Council
Karnal as a necessary party to claim any relief against the initial
appointing authority. At this stage learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 pointed out that he had approached this Court by
filing a CWP No. 16172 of 2004. While withdrawing this
petition, liberty was granted to the respondent-workman to pursue
his remedy against the Municipal Committee Assandh by issuing
a fresh demand notice. Therefore Municipal Council Karnal has
not been arrayed as party. Respondent No.2 services have been
dispensed way back on 12.12.2002 read with fact that respondent
was appointed for 89 days on contract basis therefore question of
reinstating him with continuity of service at this juncture do not
arise. Having regard to the above facts and circumstance, award
of the Labour Court dated 28.03.2012 is set aside. Respondent-
workman is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Compensation amount shall be paid by the Municipal Committee,
Assandh in view of the orders passed in CWP No. 16172 of 2004
dated 14.10.2004 and the fact that Municipal Committee,
Assandh, has not questioned order dated 14.10.2004 and it is
binding on the petitioner. Consequently, contention of the
petitioner that they have not issued order of appointment to
respondent cannot be appreciated."
5. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that clear cut
violation of provisions of Sections 25-F, G and H was proved on record and
learned Tribunal correctly passed Award dated 28.03.2012 directing
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017443-DB
LPA-377-2018
reinstatement of the appellant alongwith 50% backwages. Termination of
appellant was absolutely illegal. Person junior to the appellant had been
retained in service. The work of driver is of permanent nature. In the alternate,
it was argued by learned counsel for appellant that compensation of
Rs.50,000/- is too meagre keeping in view the length of service for which the
appellant worked. It was, thus, prayed that this appeal be allowed and
impugned order dated 08.11.2017 be set aside while upholding Award dated
28.03.2012 passed by learned Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the appeal
while submitting that order passed by learned Single Bench is liable to be
upheld having been passed after considering the entire facts and
circumstances. Dismissal of appeal was prayed for.
8. We heard learned counsel for parties and have carefully
scrutinized the file.
9. It is apparent from the record that appellant was engaged by
Municipal Corporation, Karnal on contract basis for 89 days. Municipal
Committee, Assandh admittedly falls under the jurisdiction of District Karnal.
Appellant was appointed on 13.04.2002 to the post of Driver for a period of 89
days on purely contract basis. His services were again continued on contract
basis each time for a period of 89 days till 12.12.2002. This is apparent from
communication dated 11.07.2002 from the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to
Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Assandh (Ex.MW1/A). Learned
counsel for the appellant was unable to point out anything to the contrary to
record. It is pertinent to note at this stage that reinstatement need not be a
necessary consequence of the Award of learned Tribunal. Gainful reference in
this regard can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017443-DB
LPA-377-2018
Allahabad Bank and others versus Krishan Pal Singh 2021 (19) SCC 227
and Uttanchal Forest Development Corporation versus M.C. Joshi 2007
(9) SCC 353.
10. In the given facts and circumstances, learned Single Bench has
correctly held that services of appellant having been dispensed way back on
12.12.2002 coupled with the fact that he was appointed for a period of 89 days
on contract basis, question of reinstating him with continuity of service at that
point of time did not arise. Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- has been
awarded by the learned Single Bench. We find no fault in this course of
action, however, in the given facts and circumstances, compensation awarded
to appellant is assessed as Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-. Said amount,
after deduction of any sum which may already have been released in
compliance of order dated 08.11.2017, be released to appellant within eight
weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. No other argument was raised.
13. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with the abovesaid
modification in compensation awarded by learned Single Bench.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
January 31, 2025 JUDGE
Rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
