Parbhagia Van Adhikari Sonipat Vs. Smt. Damyanti and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1057543
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2013
AppellantParbhagia Van Adhikari Sonipat
RespondentSmt. Damyanti and Another
Excerpt:
lpa no.1158 of 2013 (o&m) -:1. :- in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cm no.3024-lpa of 2013 in/and lpa no.1158 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision: july 04, 2013. parbhagia van adhikari, sonipat ..petitioner(s) v. smt. damyanti and another ..respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice rajive bhalla hon'ble mr.justice dr. bharat bhushan parsoon present: mrs.mamta singla talwar, assistant advocate general, haryana for the appellant. dr. bharat bhushan parsoon, j. (oral).this appeal under clause x of the letters patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned single judge of this court, whereby the award dated 14.2.2010 passed by the labour court, panipat (answering the reference under section 10(1)(c) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (for short the act) against the workman and in favour of the management, was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service as a seasonal daily wager. while concluding the judgment, the learned single judge had also ordered for payment of full back wages within 30 days of supply of certified copy of the order. it was further directed that in case there is an extant policy of regularization authorized by the state lpa no.1158 of 2013 (o&m) -:2. :- government, then the case of the petitioner may also be considered accordingly to save multiplicity of proceeding. alongwith the lpa, an application under section 5 of the limitation act read with section 151 cpc, for condonation of 440 days in filing the appeal, duly supported by an affidavit of divisional forest officer, sonepat, has also been preferred. respondent no.1 smt. damyanti was appointed as a gardner on daily wage basis by the respondent-management in 1986 and she served upto 27.3.2001. she had raised claim for regularization of her services and instead got a termination letter dated 27.3.2001. the appellant had claimed before the labour court that forest department was neither an industry not even the claimant/workman had completed 240 days of employment in the preceding calendar year from the date of termination in terms of section 25-b of the act. claim of the respondent-workman did not find favour with the labour court. but, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondent had been working for a sufficiently long period, learned single judge passed the impugned judgment setting aside the award of the labour court. contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-workman was a seasonal daily wager and she had not even completed 240 days during 12 months preceding the date of termination. it is also claimed that the fact that the workman had not been appointed by adopting any lpa no.1158 of 2013 (o&m) -:3. :- procedure and rules for such appointment, had also been overlooked by the learned single judge. it is claimed that reinstatement of respondent-casual worker had put extra burden on the department. during the cours.of arguments, impugned judgment as also the entire record has been perused. there is no denial that respondent-workman, though a seasonal casual wage earner, had been continuing as such till 27.3.2001, after her appointment in the year 1986, yet there are no allegations either that she had not been performing her duties sincerely and with commitment or termination of services of the workman by the management was not preceded by any adherence to principles of natural justice. rather, she was picked up and condemned unheard merely because she had voiced her concern for regularization of her services. the impugned judgment is not only well reasoned but also takes into account the entire factual matrix and is punctuated by legal principles which were followed more in breach by the management. sequely, it is held that the challenge to the impugned judgment has no merit. even with regard to observations regarding regularization of services of the respondent-workman in terms of any such policy, if in place, by the state government, these have been made with a view to prevent multiplicity of litigation and are well intentioned. even if no such relief had specifically been sought by the respondent-workman, as claimed by the management, it emerges from the case of the respondent when lpa no.1158 of 2013 (o&m) -:4. :- the same is examined wholesomely. consequently, the instant appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay are dismissed. [dr. bharat bhushan parsoon].judge [ rajive bhalla ].july 04, 2013. judge kadyan
Judgment:

LPA No.1158 of 2013 (O&M) -:

1. :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3024-LPA of 2013 in/and LPA No.1158 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: July 04, 2013.

Parbhagia Van Adhikari, Sonipat ..Petitioner(s) v.

Smt.

Damyanti and another ..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DR.

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: MRS.Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant.

Dr.

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

(Oral).This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 28.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the award dated 14.2.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Panipat (answering the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) against the workman and in favour of the management, was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service as a seasonal daily wager.

While concluding the judgment, the learned Single Judge had also ordered for payment of full back wages within 30 days of supply of certified copy of the order.

It was further directed that in case there is an extant policy of regularization authorized by the State LPA No.1158 of 2013 (O&M) -:

2. :- Government, then the case of the petitioner may also be considered accordingly to save multiplicity of proceeding.

Alongwith the LPA, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, for condonation of 440 days in filing the appeal, duly supported by an affidavit of Divisional Forest Officer, Sonepat, has also been preferred.

Respondent No.1 Smt.

Damyanti was appointed as a Gardner on daily wage basis by the respondent-management in 1986 and she served upto 27.3.2001.

She had raised claim for regularization of her services and instead got a termination letter dated 27.3.2001.

The appellant had claimed before the Labour Court that Forest Department was neither an industry not even the claimant/workman had completed 240 days of employment in the preceding calendar year from the date of termination in terms of Section 25-B of the Act.

Claim of the respondent-workman did not find favour with the Labour Court.

But, after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondent had been working for a sufficiently long period, learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment setting aside the award of the Labour Court.

Contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-workman was a seasonal daily wager and she had not even completed 240 days during 12 months preceding the date of termination.

It is also claimed that the fact that the workman had not been appointed by adopting any LPA No.1158 of 2013 (O&M) -:

3. :- procedure and rules for such appointment, had also been overlooked by the learned Single Judge.

It is claimed that reinstatement of respondent-casual worker had put extra burden on the Department.

During the couRs.of arguments, impugned judgment as also the entire record has been perused.

There is no denial that respondent-workman, though a seasonal casual wage earner, had been continuing as such till 27.3.2001, after her appointment in the year 1986, yet there are no allegations either that she had not been performing her duties sincerely and with commitment or termination of services of the workman by the management was not preceded by any adherence to principles of natural justice.

Rather, she was picked up and condemned unheard merely because she had voiced her concern for regularization of her services.

The impugned judgment is not only well reasoned but also takes into account the entire factual matrix and is punctuated by legal principles which were followed more in breach by the management.

Sequely, it is held that the challenge to the impugned judgment has no merit.

Even with regard to observations regarding regularization of services of the respondent-workman in terms of any such policy, if in place, by the State Government, these have been made with a view to prevent multiplicity of litigation and are well intentioned.

Even if no such relief had specifically been sought by the respondent-workman, as claimed by the management, it emerges from the case of the respondent when LPA No.1158 of 2013 (O&M) -:

4. :- the same is examined wholesomely.

Consequently, the instant appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay are dismissed.

[Dr.

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon].Judge [ Rajive Bhalla ].July 04, 2013.

Judge kadyan