State Of Punjab & ORS v. Presiding Officer & ANR


  ! "#$"
%&'&
(&#)&
&& &
( !&# 
 

 ( *(+ ,



     



   !   "

#    $    $# 

      %&

#&


-'.  #/%"0 0&
%&)1&0 0   '( )#

 !# (*+ ' ,*# &-.*/ '**# &-.* / %&  00000 0&
%&)1&0 02%/

  1%)* +/2&+3)%*, /  4*  5+4  '**4,6#  .)*2244  )  *1*&  &*& 


  5 7   8
96#  %*

&  +3   %&  
8 )  &4 //.# &

*2 *2#*)&*#1)+3/. :  /  9#  /2&  &  . 
  5
6  5.6  /  )  &

*2  %   .#
;95/ )#) ./
;9<6#)* +* 1& /*- /)1=,*8 %&  2*&&.* / %&81=,* )*)1*

,%23&1)%8'**4,* *= *%,* (+ .>

*,)23 *2*3/ 
?@8#)1-#

 1)   

4  *3  .#  .)*4  )@A 3    %*34 .,% *#)1* ,*&/, -.
>> >

  )  )  )*&#  %8'**4,      1

*,%2*&&)*)1=,*)*&.,%2&1=4 &*3 )%.&43*/)&*/) ,**&)*) 1* %*& *2*3"* *4* )1=4&*3  

7*,*/).&#2*& *24*-

/&4 %**4*%)
:*&)+*  /)&.

,*3 -&. 7B
 7B8
#1=&+3)1=,*1*

*



&  $*&  *2  *.)&    )  ..2

  )*  ) 1=,*)*&.,%2&,)*1=4&*3 %.&4 3*/) ,*)&%*,/%8'**4,

-#!

, 4)#  #1)*%%*&* 'B8
#*&,&)*

)1.*

..)*4 )1* -

&)1=,* *&*2 *&,&)*--*3.,% **, 1* %*& 23) #) *.2**&,

+3)%8 '**4,  )*  )  1=,*  1=&  1)  )  %8 '**4, /  *  %&  /  >9 &*3    )  2*  .*2&*  3* %.&4) ,* : 8'**4,*2 %2*&&)*)*%%, /)1=,*1* .*.+*  /*/7&, )/# )1* A ,.,%231))%-  /) ./
;9*4 4) #)'**4,2& % .56 5++6/) ./
;9

>    )  *=  /  .-.#  /&4  .&&  +3 2*& *2%**4*%) 
:*&
 %& .&) +21 "
.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I have also gone through the record, carefully. As per the version of the workman, he was employed as Dak Runner since 03.01.2001 with the respondent at the salary of Rs.2180/% per month. His services were terminated on 01.03.2003 without any notice, inquiry or compensation and as per the version of the claimant, there were notional breaks in his service just to defeat his right and there are different documents on record Ex. W%l to Ex.

W%13 and Ex. W%14 is the detail of the work done by the workman, which shows that workman was appointed vide order No.8 dated03.01.2001 and he worked upto 28.02.2003 and if we count the days, which workman continuously worked with the respondents in the last calendar year, then it became clears from Ex. W%14 that workman has completed more than 240 days of service.

It has also admitted by MW%1 Gurmeet Singh, SDO during his cross examination that it is correct that workman was employed as Dak Runner on 03.01.2001 and he worked with them upto 28.02.2003. It has further been admitted that no show cause notice, charge% sheet was served upon him nor any inquiry was conducted nor any compensation was paid to him before termination of his services. It has also been admitted that workman has worked with the respondent for a period of 327 days in the last calendar year preceding to his termination. He has also admitted that services of the workman namely Baljit Singh, who worked with the present workman, have been regularized.

 Since, there is clear cut admission of the sole witness examined by the respondent that workman served the department from 03.01.2001 to 28.02.2003 with notional breaks, which shows that workman has served the department for more than 240 days in the last calendar year preceding to his alleged termination. Moreover, this fact has also been admitted by the sole witness examined by the respondent that before terminating the services of the workman, no notice or charge% sheet was served upon him nor any inquiry

 was conducted nor any compensation was ever paid to him. It is also admitted fact that juniors to met workman are still working with the respondent and their services have been regularized. Hence from this clear cut admission, it stands established on file that workman has served the respondent/department for more than 240 days and before his termination, no proper procedure was followed by the respondent. Hence this Tribunal constrained to hold that termination of the services of the workman is illegal, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. So, workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and he is also entitled to be considered for regularization of his job as per the Departmental rules and instructions. So far as claim of back wages is concerned, he has not served the Department from 28.02.2003 onwards. Therefore, he is allowed 30% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e.10.07.2006 till joining of his duty. As such, these issues are decided in favour of the workman and against the respondents."

9 $*& *.  2

+, )*) *&*1*&)*

+%*

&44)%-  /2*1 )& .56 5++6/) ./
;9 ?

) " )* &%23%

&)*1*&*&&  /&*3

+ **2* /1))122* &/&4

.&&+32*& *2#1).) +* & %)7*,*/ )/*. *-*2*+2.& )

#+3,**4) *,#%  1% )+33 ,4 ,,3/ 50&
%&)1&0 06

%2#  %"(!

rashmi   B)) %*=4@* & 3 @ B))%*+2C 3 @