Asha Rani v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal And Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh And ORS

-
-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.07.2023 Asha Rani ....Petitioner

Versus



     ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Sawhney, Addl. Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Junior Panel Counsel for respondents No. 2, 4 to 6.

-.- -.- HARSH BUNGER, J.



 

  !  

  ""#$""%



 & ' 



(  '  ") ")
+

, -
.   

    / /  '   '

0

(

  '0   (.

(

(.



"1)))$- 

(

2 . (

  . 3 "

  '

  & ' 



-"-

"

4 

     . 0 (   )# ")
"

. 5 

     7  (( 0 8. 6 
9   6  "

8.


9:%

 ;
9:%

<

*

 . (

(  0 .. . .-5 (  "
)# "))%  

( 6  8 0 '0  ..(  



( .-'&( 
  . (   . '    '&

  (           

(.   

 . . '  .

  )

) ")

 5 (  '

 '& . 

 &'

 

.(  '&    . 0   ' ( ' 0  



(  $ ' . .

. = 5 (

(  '&

(  ":) 

   

  ( '

(. ' .0

6  "1-2

9:%



(

  

 

( > . (  , 5 (  (

(

 . > '  0 '

..( ' (  (

.

   . ( 0

.0

-*- 6  "1-2 "1-?

"1-7

9:%





( (

  0 

 .   '



  & '  '  .   '
+@

(. 

:



(

 . 3

" #  '      5$6

( 6  8 0

 

.0 (.' 7 8.( ' ((

(

     ' '

(

( 7 8.( . (



 (



( '&(-.  0    

(.-(. ' . 3

" # 



 



. 3

" #     . 

  

  . , .

*
")

  ( , .

*) )9 ")

 &. 0'

  . ( .

   .

  ,

  *) )9 ")



(  ' 

 1"1)$- . (  #)))$-  

   

' 0 (



  (   . ( .

.  

  ,  *) )9 ")

(

  0      

 .0

6  "1-2

9:%

  .. 

 .

(

 (

-:-

- (-    0  '  ") ")
+

, -
  A





  
 

 

                  

 !   "#   
 
 $%       "

  &%!   '  ( ) !       %      
'  $

   

 * 
%
"

&%!  ''


%
'& 
 % % 
% ! 
+'
* '




%) 
%)&,-.     /  $  
   )
         !

 '(           %
    


)%!  



    "

&%!   
         %          
%%
  ) %)&,-. /$  %%

 )'0 #

 

 (  

 - (- 



'A

-11      )         
) %)&,-.   /  $          
  
  %  '2%)       )  
  
        
3
! %
     %    %   4',

'$
  !


 )
'
  '

 
!)       
 
 
   )     '  (       
   %   %4',

'(

% 

%! 5)56' $%%%  5)  !  
'  7%     
! 8
/
& 
 7
)!- &  
 /% $
 $    
         
 7) 7'. !

'0 %

  '  ") ")
+

, -
 ..    '

  ! 

+

   '  ") ")
+

, -
(.  . 

 0  



. 0 . 0    .. & ' (.  '  ") ")
+

, -
. 

   

-#-

 (



 

'  . A- $  
    %                %




 
9' +        ':' ;     
 
%'0

.

 0 . 3

* 

( 6  8 0  .    ,-.    '

   



. 3

" :

# .. .

 (

(. ( '

(. > 

.

(

' . (

12.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.N.L. Versus Bhurumal, 2014(3) S.C.T. 49, has held as under :- "23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases

-%- reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 24.

Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation (See: State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1).

Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose....." 13.

In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corpn. And another v. Gitam Singh 2013(5) Supreme Court Cases 136,  0 0'

(

  (   . . 0

 ( & 

'& ( (

..(  



 0'



> (   0 

(. 

(

-+- .. (

:

7/

.,  .

  

(. 

(



  ( #!!

/%)'+< 53 =

"))+
6 1%1 &4)'

#  +.( =  "))+ 6 %1  5/$)'

$2=

"))+ :

6 "#
'

1

& 

 .. 7.  

 

1"1)$-

. 

. 3

" :

#   0 ( 0

.0

6  "1-2

9:%



. '

 . 0  

  ' . 

 - (-  



   ' .-5 (   ")
"B    (

.

(. '  ' 

#

 

 ( ( 0' 

> '  (

(. '  '

 

( 

"1)))$- 

)))))$-

.-5 (   .   ( ' .



(

( 

 .

 

.

 

 > (.

(

(. '  '

 .





-.(

( ' . .   

( (.   

#@ . (    ( .( (

-9-
%

 ' . .

- (

+

 . ..   

  



07.07.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani/sjks JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No