LPA No.121 of 2007 [1].***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.121 of 2007 Date of decision:11.03.2013 The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr...Petitioners versus Jagdish Ram alias Jagdish Singh alias Jagdish Chander & Anr...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
***** A.K.Sikri, C.J.(Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated December 21, 2005 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.4505 of 1996.
Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the award of the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 in service.
The main reason which swayed with the learned Single Judge was that the award in the case of other workmen, who were also retrenched along with respondent No.1 herein, was to reinstate them holding the retrenchment to be illegal.
Giving different treatment, according to the learned Single Judge, amounted to discrimination qua the respondent No.1 herein.
LPA No.121 of 2007 [2].***** Brief facts, which need to be noted, are that the respondent No.1 as well as some other workers were engaged on daily wage basis in the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Survey Sub Division, Chandigarh.
They were engaged on the aforesaid basis in the year 1986.
Insofar as the respondent No.1 is concerned, his date of engagement is 01.11.1986.
The wages paid to them were charged to the Labour Component in respect of various works which are undertaken by the appellants.
Vide Memo No.1230 dated 21.02.1992, the appellants decided to retrench the services of the respondent No.1 and 10 otheRs.In this memo, it was stated that they were daily wage workers and as there was no budgetary provision of any work available with the appellants, to which they could be put, it was decided to retrench these persons being junior most in the department.
This was a one month's notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.) and it was stated that after the expiry of the period of one month, service of the notices shall be dispensed with.
They were also asked to collect the compensation in terms of Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act from the office.
This memo was followed by notice put on notice board on 07.04.1992 stating that they had not collected their retrenchment compensation and they were again advised to collect the same.
Out of 11 workeRs.so retrenched, 7 accepted the compensation offered to them, however, 4 others including the respondent No.1 herein raised the industrial dispute challenging the said retrenchment as illegal.
4 different references in respect of these 4 workers were made to the Labour Court.
In the other 3 cases, the Presiding Officer returned the award holding LPA No.121 of 2007 [3].***** termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and directed reinstatement of those 3 workers in service along with 50% back wages.
However, insofar as the respondent No.1 herein is concerned, the finding of the Labour Court was otherwise.
Vide the award dated 08.08.1995, the learned Labour Court held that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were duly complied with and retrenchment of the respondent No.1 herein was valid.
He, thus, answered the award against the workman and in favour of the appellants herein.
Against that award, the respondent No.1 had filed the writ petition, as mentioned above.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would reflect that when the other 3 workeRs.who were identically situated and were retrenched along with the respondent No.1 herein, were reinstated in service and the award of the Labour Court was complied with, there was no reason to meet out a different treatment to the respondent No.1 herein.
The relevant discussion of the learned Single Judge in this behalf runs as follows:- “This Court is therefore of the view that different yardsticks have been adopted for different persons.
In the case of the Petitioner, the Labour Court held that there was no violation of Section 25-F whereas in the case of the others named above, the same Labour Court (although the Presiding Officer was different).held that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F.
The same Labour Court, in the case of the petitioner, held that he was not entitled to any relief while, in the case of the other 3 persons named above, held that they were entitled to relief.
Such discrimination through a Court of Law is neither fair not desirable not appreciated.
What is Sauce for the Goose is also Sauce for the Gander and a set of finding which applies to one set of persons, cannot be made inapplicable to another person and that too, when his name was included in the same Notice of LPA No.121 of 2007 [4].***** retrenchment.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court therefore holds that the Award, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is discriminatory and is rendered illegal and arbitrary qua Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In that view of the matter, the same is set aside and the Respondents are directed to act consistently and in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no Order as to Costs.”
It would be pertinent to mention here that against the award passed in other 3 cases, the appellants-Management had preferred writ petitions which were dismissed by this Court.
LPAs were also dismissed and even the SLPs filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Supreme Court.
On 08.02.2008, while dismissing the Special Leave petitions, the Supreme Court, however, observed that the said order would not be taken as a precedent in other cases.
It is because of the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that this case be considered at its own merits.
According to us, the observations of the Supreme Court that the order would not be taken as a precedent in other cases would mean that the award or the order of the Supreme Court passed in the 3 cases is not to be treated as a precedent.
However, in the instant case, we find that the respondent No.1 was part of the same group.
In 3 other cases, the outcome of the proceedings initiated by them was different than the case of the respondent No.1.
It is for this reason that the learned Single Judge observed that not granting the same relief to the respondent No.1 herein, which is accorded to the other workeRs.would amount to LPA No.121 of 2007 [5].***** discrimination.
Going by these considerations, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference as the learned Single Judge has simply followed the awards passed in the cases of other 3 workers who were identically situated as the respondent No.1 herein.
At the same time, we are of the opinion that insofar as the payment of back wages is concerned, the impugned order needs some modification because of the lapse of time and also for the reason that the respondent No.1 has not worked all these yeaRs.It is also because of the reason that as far as the award of the Labour Court had gone in favour of the appellants.
While dismissing this appeal insofar as the order of reinstatement is concerned and directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent No.1 herein within one month from today, insofar as the back wages are concerned, 50% back wages shall be given to the respondent No.1 herein from the date of orders passed by the learned Single Judge i.e.December 21, 2005.
This couRs.of action is acceptable to the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terMs.(A.K.Sikri) Chief Justice (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge March 11, 2013 vinod*