Cwp No.7105 of 2011 Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1058530
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-30-2013
AppellantCwp No.7105 of 2011
RespondentPunjab Financial Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.7105 of 2011 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh 1 cwp no.7105 of 2011 date of decision:30. 04.2013 sukhwinder singh ....petitioner versus punjab financial corporation ltd., chandigarh and others ....respondents 2. cwp no.7137 of 2011 rachhpal singh ....petitioner versus punjab financial corporation ltd., chandigarh and others ....respondents 3. cwp no.7140 of 2011 balbir singh ....petitioner versus punjab financial corporation ltd.chandigarh and another ....respondents 4. cwp no.7144 of 2011 sukhwinder singh ....petitioner versus punjab financial corporation ltd., chandigarh and another ....respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.s.k.sharma budhladawale, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.g.s.bal, advocate, for respondents no.1 ”1. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j. since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above noted 4 writ petitions, they are heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. facts have, however, been extracted from cwp cwp no.7105 of 2011 -2- no.7105 of 2011. the short controvers.involved in these labour matters is whether relief of reinstatement was rightly denied and instead award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was adequate and justified. this issue is required to be examined on certain factual inputs. admittedly, the total length of service spent before termination was about 7 years from 02.08.1995 to 24.07.2002 on daily wage/ad hoc basis. in the appointment letter, it was mentioned that the appointment was for 89 days only and that the services could be terminated without any prior notice or emoluments in lieu thereof. the workman had joined the department on the basis of an appointment letter and continued to work till 24.07.2002 because the services of the workman were not terminated by the respondents on the expiry of stipulated period of 89 days. therefore, it is proved on record that the workman had completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year immediately before the date of his termination. petitioner’s services were dispensed with on 25.07.2002. neither any notice was served on the workman not was retrenchment compensation paid to him before dispensing with of his services. by the impugned award dated 26.11.2009 relief of reinstatement with full back wages has been declined and the workman was held entitled to compensation of rs.40,000/- in lieu thereof. the tribunal has found that the petitioner was not a regular employee and his appointment was not consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment and had no right to the post. following the law laid down by the supreme court in ‘secretary, state of karnataka and others versus umadevi and others’, (2006) 4 scc, 1, the tribunal denied the relief of cwp no.7105 of 2011 -3- reinstatement. umadevi (3)has been explained and distinguished by the supreme court in maharashtra state road transport corporation ltd v. casteribe rajya parivahan karamchari sanghatana, (2009) 8 scc 55.as an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the supreme court under article 32 and the high court under article 226 should not issue directions of absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme but umadevi(3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the industrial and labour courts in passing appropriate orders under industrial law once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of schedule iv of the mrtu act and pulp act (which is in pari materia to item 10 of schedule v of the industrial disputes act, 1947) is established. heard learned counsel for the parties. the tribunal may be justified in not awarding reinstatement since there is no finding of an unfair labour practice on the part of the management. however, for breach of provisions of section 25f of the act, compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be just and proper relief which can be granted. the question of what should be adequate compensation is a rather ticklish question to answer and its determination appears to be largely based on gut reactions of courts tempered with judicial experience and of the total impact of fact situations presented before it in myriad cases while dealing with them from time to time and case to case. there can be no judicial uniformity or strait jacket formula in such exercise. neither would it be wise to do so. cwp no.7105 of 2011 -4- in ‘state of haryana versus ishwar singh and another’, 2008 (3) s.c.t., 788, the division bench of this court has laid down a rough rule that in the cases of award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, a sum of rs.20,000/- for each completed year of service can be considered just and reasonable. in ‘bsnl versus man singh’, (2012) 1 scc 55.in a case of two daily wage employees who had served the corporation for about two years and were retrenched in 1986 and had raised demand notice for the firs.time in 1991 the supreme court ordered compensation of rs.2 lacs to each of the workman as just and adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement. in ‘assistant engineer, rajasthan dev. corp. & anr versus gitam singh’, 2013 stpl(web) 84 sc the supreme court awarded rs.50,000/- for a brief daily wage service of eight months. cases can be multiplied but would needlessly burden the judgment for no real or further purpose. the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases can be applied to the facts of these cases and the relief of compensation deserves to be modified as under as fair compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the facts of these cases:- cwp not years of service amount of amount of rendered by compensation compensation workman awarded by the ordered to be industrial tribunal modified/paid as enhanced compensation 7105 of 2011 about 7 years rs.40,000/ rs.1,00,000/- 7137 of 2011 about 7 years rs.40,000/- rs.1,00,000/- 7144 of 2011 about 15 years rs.75,000/- rs.2,00,000/- 7140 of 2011 about 10 years rs.55,000/- rs.1,50,000/- cwp no.7105 of 2011 -5- resultantly, these writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned awards are modified by maintaining the same but with the modification that the petitioners-workmen would be entitled to the compensation as ordered above. let this amount be not paid to the workmen within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (rajiv narain raina) 30.04.2013 judge adhikari
Judgment:

CWP No.7105 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1

CWP No.7105 of 2011 Date of Decision:

30. 04.2013 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 2.

CWP No.7137 of 2011 Rachhpal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 3.

CWP No.7140 of 2011 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation LTD.Chandigarh and another ....Respondents 4.

CWP No.7144 of 2011 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.S.K.Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 ”

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in the above noted 4 writ petitions, they are heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts have, however, been extracted from CWP CWP No.7105 of 2011 -2- No.7105 of 2011.

The short controveRs.involved in these labour matters is whether relief of reinstatement was rightly denied and instead award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was adequate and justified.

This issue is required to be examined on certain factual inputs.

Admittedly, the total length of service spent before termination was about 7 years from 02.08.1995 to 24.07.2002 on daily wage/ad hoc basis.

In the appointment letter, it was mentioned that the appointment was for 89 days only and that the services could be terminated without any prior notice or emoluments in lieu thereof.

The workman had joined the department on the basis of an appointment letter and continued to work till 24.07.2002 because the services of the workman were not terminated by the respondents on the expiry of stipulated period of 89 days.

Therefore, it is proved on record that the workman had completed more than 240 days of service in the last preceding year immediately before the date of his termination.

Petitioner’s services were dispensed with on 25.07.2002.

Neither any notice was served on the workman not was retrenchment compensation paid to him before dispensing with of his services.

By the impugned award dated 26.11.2009 relief of reinstatement with full back wages has been declined and the workman was held entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu thereof.

The Tribunal has found that the petitioner was not a regular employee and his appointment was not consistent with the constitutional scheme of public employment and had no right to the post.

Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others’, (2006) 4 SCC, 1, the tribunal denied the relief of CWP No.7105 of 2011 -3- reinstatement.

Umadevi (3)has been explained and distinguished by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd v.

Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 55.as an authoritative pronouncement for the proposition that the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 should not issue directions of absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad hoc employees unless the recruitment was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme but Umadevi(3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate orders under industrial law once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU Act and PULP Act (which is in pari materia to item 10 of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) is established.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Tribunal may be justified in not awarding reinstatement since there is no finding of an unfair labour practice on the part of the management.

However, for breach of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be just and proper relief which can be granted.

The question of what should be adequate compensation is a rather ticklish question to answer and its determination appears to be largely based on gut reactions of Courts tempered with judicial experience and of the total impact of fact situations presented before it in myriad cases while dealing with them from time to time and case to case.

There can be no judicial uniformity or strait jacket formula in such exercise.

Neither would it be wise to do so.

CWP No.7105 of 2011 -4- In ‘State of Haryana versus Ishwar Singh and another’, 2008 (3) S.C.T., 788, the Division Bench of this Court has laid down a rough rule that in the cases of award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for each completed year of service can be considered just and reasonable.

In ‘BSNL versus Man Singh’, (2012) 1 SCC 55.in a case of two daily wage employees who had served the corporation for about two years and were retrenched in 1986 and had raised demand notice for the fiRs.time in 1991 the Supreme Court ordered compensation of Rs.2 lacs to each of the workman as just and adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

In ‘Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev.

Corp.

& Anr versus Gitam Singh’, 2013 STPL(Web) 84 SC the Supreme Court awarded Rs.50,000/- for a brief daily wage service of eight months.

Cases can be multiplied but would needlessly burden the judgment for no real or further purpose.

The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases can be applied to the facts of these cases and the relief of compensation deserves to be modified as under as fair compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the facts of these cases:- CWP not Years of service Amount of Amount of rendered by compensation compensation workman awarded by the ordered to be Industrial Tribunal modified/paid as enhanced compensation 7105 of 2011 About 7 years Rs.40,000/ Rs.1,00,000/- 7137 of 2011 About 7 years Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 7144 of 2011 About 15 years Rs.75,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- 7140 of 2011 About 10 years Rs.55,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- CWP No.7105 of 2011 -5- Resultantly, these writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned awards are modified by maintaining the same but with the modification that the petitioners-workmen would be entitled to the compensation as ordered above.

Let this amount be not paid to the workmen within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 30.04.2013 JUDGE adhikari