Judgment:
LPA No.1180 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** LPA No.1180 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision : 13.2.2014 Rajinder Singh ........Appellant versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others ......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu Present:- Mr.Harjit Singh Gill, Advocate, for Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Lekhraj Nandal, AAG, Haryana --- Jasbir Singh, J.
(Oral) Appellant Rajinder Singh was working as Chowkidar (Watchman) with the respondent-Department.
He entered in service on daily wages on 4.1.1996.
On 26.8.1998 he was transferred to another district, however, he was not allowed to join at the place of transfer and his services were terminated without assigning any reason.
Alleging violation of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short 'the Act').he raised an industrial dispute.
Matter was sent to the Labour Court for adjudication and vide Award dated 21.4.2003, his claim was rejected, solely on a ground that Forest Division, Yamuna Nagar, would not fall in the definition of an 'industry'.
However, the fact of his having worked for more than 240 days and that his retrenchment was without complying with the provisions of the Act, was proved on record.
The appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No.6228 of Kumar Ashwani 2014.03.03 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1180 of 2010 (O & M) -2- 2005, which was partly allowed on 29.5.2009.
By placing reliance upon ratio of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'District Forest Officer (T).Hisar v.
Attar Singh and otheRs.CWP No.11888 of 2003 decided on 2.8.2004, it was rightly held that 'Forest Department' of the State of Haryana, would fall in the definition of 'Industry', as envisaged in Section 2(j) of the Act.
It was also rightly noticed that the workman had rendered employment for more than 240 days, 12 months preceding the date of his termination.
Noting violation of the provision of Section 25F of the Act, compensation of ` 25,000/-was ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement in service.
It is vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that once it is proved on record that there was violation of the provision of Section 25F of the Act, it is mandatory for the learned Single Judge to order reinstatement of the appellant in service with payment of full back wages.
In the alternate he has stated that compensation amount of ` 25,000/-, ordered to be paid to the appellant, is very less.
In Civil Appeal No.10957 of 2013 titled as 'B.S.N.L.v.
Bhuru Mal decided on 11.12.2013, by noting the fact, that termination was made many years prior to the date of order of reinstatement, the Supreme Court held that in such cases compensation is the proper remedy to be given to an employee, who was wrongly terminated from service.
In view of above said decision, the prayer regarding reinstatement in service cannot be entertained.
In the said judgment it is stated that reinstatement can be ordered only in cases where termination Kumar Ashwani 2014.03.03 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.1180 of 2010 (O & M) -3- order was passed on account of some mala fide and not in cases where termination was bad on account of some technical defect.
In the present case, no mala fide has been alleged and proved on record in terminating services of the appellant.
In Bhuru Mal's case (supra) it is specifically stated that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation instead of ordering reinstatement in such like circumstances.
It is an admitted fact that the appellant was taken in service on 4.1.1996.
His services were terminated on 26.8.1998.
In the process, he has rendered about 2 years 11 months and 40 days service.
He is an able bodied person.
He might be earning to feed his family during this period.
Under the circumstances, we feel that grant of compensation is the proper remedy.
However, learned Single Judge has granted only an amount of ` 25,000/-which in our opinion, is on the lower side.
Under the circumstances, we partly allow this appeal and compensation amount is enhanced from ` 25,000/-to ` 2 lakhs.
Amount already paid shall be deducted from ` 2 lakhs.
The respondent Department shall pay the amount within three months from today, failing which the appellant shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 9% P.A.till payment is made.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge 13.2.2014 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2014.03.03 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document