The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited Karnal Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059710
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnNov-30-2012
AppellantThe Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited Karnal
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
review application rfa no.1792 of 2009no.453 (o&m) of& 2009 (o&m) other connected cases -1- in the high court for the states of punjab and harayana at chandigarh date of decision: november 30, 2012 review application no.453 of 2009 (o&m) in cwp no.11549 of 1992 the karnal central cooperative bank limited, karnal ….petitioner versus state of haryana and others ….respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice k. kannan present: mr.jagdeep singh, advocate for the applicant. mr.kartar singh, dag, haryana mr.y.p.malik, advocate for respondent no.3. *** k. kannan, j.(oral) 1. the application for recall of the order dated 19.08.2009 is on a ground that this court was providing for compensation of rs.2 lac for denial of employment in spite of order passed by the labour court for reinstatement for violation of statutory requirement of section 25f of the industrial disputes act. the application is on the basis that the employee who was directed to be given reinstatement which was subject matter of cwp no.11549 of 1992 was actually reinstated on compromise and he served, but died in harness and his legal representative was also provided with compassionate appointment. the provision for compensation of rs.2 lacs to wrongly dismissed employee was to make good the loss for not having been provided employment. at the time when the order was passed information was not given by the counsel that one of the employees had actually secured employment. review application rfa no.1792 of 2009no.453 (o&m) of& 2009 (o&m) other connected cases -2- 2. the documentary evidence not produced shows that impugned order would require to be modified that no compensation is payable to the legal representatives of one of the employees in view of the reinstatement order.”3. learned counsel appearing for representative of the employee says that he was reinstated merely after 7 years in spite of the order and the backwages had not also been paid. this cannot be subject of consideration now, since it appears that the employee gave up his claim for backwages in obtaining reinstatement. the compensation that impugned order provided was only for an employee who was not given reinstatement in spite of the favourable orders.since the employee in cwp no.11549 of 1992 secured the order of reinstatement, the provision for compensation given to him through the impugned order stands withdrawn.”4. the order already passed on 19.05.2009 shall be read as modified through this order. 30.11.2012 (k. kannan) vcgarg judge
Judgment:

Review Application RFA No.1792 of 2009No.453 (O&M) of& 2009 (O&M) other connected cases -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 30, 2012 Review Application No.453 of 2009 (O&M) in CWP No.11549 of 1992 The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Karnal ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN Present: Mr.Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate for respondent No.3.

*** K.

KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1.

The application for recall of the order dated 19.08.2009 is on a ground that this Court was providing for compensation of Rs.2 lac for denial of employment in spite of order passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement for violation of statutory requirement of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The application is on the basis that the employee who was directed to be given reinstatement which was subject matter of CWP No.11549 of 1992 was actually reinstated on compromise and he served, but died in harness and his legal representative was also provided with compassionate appointment.

The provision for compensation of Rs.2 lacs to wrongly dismissed employee was to make good the loss for not having been provided employment.

At the time when the order was passed information was not given by the counsel that one of the employees had actually secured employment.

Review Application RFA No.1792 of 2009No.453 (O&M) of& 2009 (O&M) other connected cases -2- 2.

The documentary evidence not produced shows that impugned order would require to be modified that no compensation is payable to the legal representatives of one of the employees in view of the reinstatement order.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for representative of the employee says that he was reinstated merely after 7 years in spite of the order and the backwages had not also been paid.

This cannot be subject of consideration now, since it appears that the employee gave up his claim for backwages in obtaining reinstatement.

The compensation that impugned order provided was only for an employee who was not given reinstatement in spite of the favourable ordeRs.Since the employee in CWP No.11549 of 1992 secured the order of reinstatement, the provision for compensation given to him through the impugned order stands withdrawn.”

4. The order already passed on 19.05.2009 shall be read as modified through this order.

30.11.2012 (K.

KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE