State Of Haryana v. Satpal
! "#$#%# &### #% #
' ()
'* + ,
' ()
-+*'
./
% (%0
2,,
#3 4$5 3 ," ' '#"#&6#''
!
" #$ %
&'() *
+++++ '#"#&6#''7",8 9 , ))
%
%) '
- *
' )
, !01 ( (1 + Present writ petition has been filed by State of Haryana through Executive Engineer Public Health Division, Narwana for
quashing the impugned award dated 22.08.2000 (Annexure P-5) rendered in reference No.477 of 1997/925 of 1998 issued under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred as 'learned Tribunal') in favour of the respondent-workman, whereby, workman was held to be entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. As per the demand notice dated 06.02.1997 sent by workman-Satpal, he was appointed as Beildar on 15.07.1995 and worked continuously uptill 23.07.1996 without any break. But, on 24.07.1996, he was terminated from service by the petitionerManagement, without following provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
Before termination of the services, Management neither issued notice; nor held any domestic inquiry; nor charge sheeted him on any account, and even, no retrenchment compensation was given. Infact, Management got annoyed with the filing of the writ petition by the Workman and thereafter, he was ousted from the service. Thus, on the basis of the demand notice, reference No.
by respondent No.1 under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Act for its decision to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
3.
Facts of CWP-2676 of 2001 are as under:
Writ petition has been filed by State of Haryana through Executive Engineer Public Health Division, Narwana for quashing the impguned award dated 22.08.2000 (Annexure P-5) rendered in reference No.478 of 1997/884 of 1998 issued under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat ( hereinafter referred as ' learned Tribunal') in favour of the respondent-workman, whereby, workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
As per demand notice dated 06.02.1997 sent by workman-Kuldeep, he was appointed as Beildar on 01.06.1995 and worked continuously uptill 23.07.1996 without any break. But, on 24.07.1996, he was terminated from service by the petitionerManagement, without following provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Before termination of the services, Management neither issued notice; nor held any domestic inquiry, nor charge sheeted him on any account
and even, no retrenchment compensation was given. Infact, Management got annoyed with the filing of the writ petition by the Workman and thereafter, he was ousted from the service. Thus, on the basis of the demand notice, reference No.478 of 1997 was forwarded by respondent No.1 under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Act for its decision to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
4.
On the basis of the stand taken in the written statement and also in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner argued that infact, during the flood time in the State of Haryana, the Services of the workmen were taken for the specific purpose by the Management. He further submits that appointment of the workmen was for a specific purpose i.e. flood work only and removal of him/her on completion of the project/work would not attract the provisions of the Act and therefore, the termination of services of the respondents namely Satpal and Kuldeep Singh in both the petitions being workmen was as per law. Even, their earlier writ petitions filed before the High Court were dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that since, no industrial dispute arises, there was no occasion for making compliance of Section 25-F of the Act.
5.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentworkmen submits that the plea of the respondents in both the cases is the same that the services of the respondents were taken on account of an emergent situation i.e. during the flood time, but he admits that on 15.07.1996 and 01.06.1995, when the respondent(s)-workmen, namely, Satpal and Kuldeep Singh were appointed respectively, there was no flood situation in the State of Haryana. Infact, the flood was there in the State of Haryana in the Month of September and it has been so observed in the impugned award also. While referring to the findings under issue No.1 recorded in paragraph No.5 of the Impugned award, there is a reference to the appointment before flood time which came on 04.09.1995. In other words, the flood period started on 04.09.
1995, whereas, the appointment of the workmanSatpal was on 15.07.1995 and workman-Kuldeep Singh was on 01.06.1995.
obtained. In view of the observations cited above and the factum of appointment of workmen prior to the flood period, the plea of the respondent-workmen is more tenable, on the face of it. 6.
Therefore, this Court does not find it tenable to deviate from the findings given by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in response to both the references forwarded by the learned State Government under Section 10 (1) (C) of the Act. Thus, findings recorded in regard to the holding of termination order as illegal is upheld and it is also affirmed that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with and thus, termination of the workmen is against the law.
7.
However, before parting with the judgment, this Court has taken note of the fact that vide order dated 24.02.2001, operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court subject to the compliance of Section 17-B of the Act. This Court is informed that both the respondents-workmen have been receiving the amount of last pay drawn since the time the stay order was passed by this Court i.e. from 24.02.2001. Meaning thereby, in the last about 28 years, respondent(s) were never reinstated by the Management as there was a
stay order and were receiving the amount as paid under Section 17-B of the Act. The Court is also informed that workman-Satpal in CWP2674 of 2001 has already attained the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that workmen in both the cases worked in the year 1995 to 1996 for about a year only, and for the last about 28 years none of them have been in service with the petitioner-Management. Thus, this Court is of the view that instead of extending all the benefits as ordered by learned Labour Court, as on date, some lump sum compensation can be granted. On that account, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-workmen in both cases relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court titled as 'B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal', 2014 AIR (Supreme Court)1188, Law Finder Doc Id # 507761 and referred to paragraphs No. 24, 25 and 26, whereby workman was ordered to be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lacs on account of the fact that for the last 15 years he was out of the service.
For the sake of convenience, paragraphs No. 24, 25 and 26 are reproduced hereunder:
!
" #$
$
%
%
$
%
& '
( % ) "$ &**+, -- .,$ /
% $
%
-
$
$
$
$
0 $ $ % /
%
/
1
%
$ %
$
2
$
+ #
$
0
%
:
$
%
..
$
%
.
5 $
% .
**.
** /
$
6
%
!
$
1
3
&
, ₹
7 48$ -
8%
%
%
*
%
$
% /
.:
1 #
-;/ 2 /
/
. $***<
& !
/
,
Counsel for the respondent-workmen also relies upon the judgment of Division Bench titled as 'B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya Vs. Mukesh Kumar and others', 2014 (12) S.C.T. 710, Law Finder Doc Id #599265 on the same ratio, Wherein subsequently, the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court),
and a compensation amount of Rs. 3 lacs was ordered. Relevant paragraphs No. 4,5 and 6 of the said judgment reads as under:
#
$
8
-
4 .
*:
%
4 .
3 -
2 /
%
%
=
%
%
.>
5
**?
2
4 .
-
1
-
7 48 7 *.&, 8 .@
# $ 1
" -
; &*.9,
-- .9+'
44"
*.9 - 9B*'
*.9 ..
..$
% $
7 8
- 6
0
%
1 $
-
$
$
%
!
/ #
$
$
9**
% /
$
$
$
%
@:
$
#
8.
Thus, taking note of the referred judgments, this Court is also of the view that a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs to each of the workmen-respondents be paid by the Petitioner-management. It has been so observed by taking note of the fact that after the gap of 28 years, respondents-workmen should not be thrusted upon the employer(petitioner).
Thus, with the aforementioned reasons recorded, both the present petitions are disposed of.
;'#"#&6#''< .
/ 01 " %
2 ($3
3 2 * 4
3