Dfo (T), Govt Of Hry, Forest Dept., Kaithal v. Tekka @ Tek Ram And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 202+235 CWP-22006-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.09.2024 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KAITHAL .... PETITIONER TEKKA @ TEK RAM AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENTS 2.
CWP-6335-2018 (O&M) THE GOVT. OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .... PETITIONERS V/ S BEERA RAM AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 3.
CWP-27640-2017 JAI PAL AND ANOTHER 4.
CWP-27641-2017 SMT. BALA AND ANOTHER
5.
CWP-27642-2017 SMT. KINDER DEVI @ BINDER DEVI AND ANOTHER 6.
CWP-27643-2017 DHARAM PAL AND ANOTHER 7.
CWP-27734-2017 MILKHI RAM AND ANOTHER 8.
CWP-27740-2017 AJAIB SINGH @ THADI AND ANOTHER
9.
CWP-21853-2017 (O&M) JASBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 10.
CWP-21854-2017 (O&M) MONICA AND ANOTHER 11.
CWP-21872-2017 SULTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS 12.
CWP-28496-2017 (O&M) GOVT. OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT, KAITHAL SHAMSHER SINGH AND ANOTHER 13.
CWP-28886-2017
RAM KUMAR AND ANR 14.
CWP-17267-2018 (O&M) DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, TERRITORIAL & ORS ....PETITIONERS RAM CHANDER AND ANOTHER 15.
CWP-6307-2018 (O&M) GOVT OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT, KAITHAL SATPAL AND ANR 16.
CWP-6308-2018 (O&M) GOVT OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT, KAITHAL HARI KUMAR AND ANOTHER 17.
CWP-9411-2019
VED PARKASH AND ANOTHER 18.
CWP-22036-2017 SMT. INDRO DEVI AND ANOTHER 19.
CWP-14087-2017 RATTNA AND ANOTHER 20.
CWP-12739-2019 RAM PHAL AND ANR 21.
CWP-12775-2019
SANDEEP AND ANR 22.
CWP-12737-2019 TARSEM SINGH AND ANOTHER 23.
CWP-33172-2019 KIRTU RAM AND ANOTHER 24.
CWP-33185-2019 PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER 25.
CWP-33229-2019 RAJBIR AND ANOTHER
26.
CWP-33354-2019 SANTRO DEVI AND ANOTHER 27.
CWP-33182-2019 TEK CHAND AND ANOTHER 28.
CWP-33191-2019 SHAMSHER AND ANOTHER CWP-36866-2019 PREM CHAND AND ANOTHER 30.
CWP-1842-2020
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER TERRITORIAL SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER 31.
CWP-1855-2020 SUBHASH AND ANOTHER 32.
CWP-1857-2020 PIRTHI SINGH AND ANOTHER 33.
CWP-1858-2020 VIJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER 34.
CWP-1859-2020
RAKAM SINGH AND ANOTHER 35.
CWP-1865-2020 VIRBHAN AND ANOTHER 36.
CWP-1868-2020 KARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 37.
CWP-1869-2020 GURPINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER 38.
CWP-1872-2020
ROSHANI DEVI AND ANOTHER 39.
CWP-7574-2021 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER TERRITORIAL KARAM CHAND AND ANOTHER 40.
CWP-7572-2021 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER TERRITORIAL SATYAVAN AND ANOTHER 41.
CWP-7329-2021 HANS RAJ AND ANOTHER 42.
CWP-13124-2021 GURDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER
43.
CWP-13136-2021 ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 44.
CWP-13139-2021 MEM PAL AND ANR 45.
CWP-13140-2021 KRISHNA DEVI ALIAS KIRAN AND ANR 46.
CWP-13142-2021 PREM KUMAR AND ANOTHER
47.
CWP-13144-2021 VASHU DEV AND ANOTHER 48.
CWP-13145-2021 RAM MEHAR AND ANR 49.
CWP-13146-2021 SUKHWINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER CWP-13147-2021 SHAMSHER SINGH AND ANOTHER 51.
CWP-13148-2021
TARA CHAND AND ANOTHER 52.
CWP-13150-2021 KARAMVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 53.
CWP-13154-2021 PARVEEN KUMAR AND ANOTHER 54.
CWP-13163-2021 RAM NIWAS AND ANR 55.
CWP-13610-2021
MAHAVIR AND ANOTHER 56.
CWP-13138-2021 AMRIK SINGH AND ANOTHER 57.
CWP-12729-2021 AZMER AND ANOTHER 58.
CWP-13603-2021 NANHA RAM AND ANR 59.
CWP-13611-2021
JAI BHAGWAN AND ANR 60.
CWP-14684-2021 SHISH PAL AND ANR 61.
CWP-14685-2021 BHIM SINGH AND ANR 62.
CWP-24863-2021 PARKASHA @ OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER 63.
CWP-3321-2022
RESHMA AND ANOTHER 64.
CWP-3330-2022 ...PETITIONER MAHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER 65.
CWP-3332-2022 ...PETITIONER PARAMJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER 66.
CWP-3333-2022 MOHINDER AND ANR 67.
CWP-3351-2022
SANJAY AND ANR 68.
CWP-3351-2022 CHANDI RAM AND ANR 69.
CWP-3394-2022 SUBHASH AND ANOTHER 70.
CWP-3295-2022 SATBIR AND ANR 71.
CWP-24940-2021 ZILE SINGH AND ANOTHER
72.
CWP-24970-2021 MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR 73.
CWP-24971-2021 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, TERRITORIAL ....PETITIONER ROSHAN LAL AND ANOTHER 74.
CWP-24972-2021 RAJU PARSHAD AND ANR 75.
CWP-24974-2021 RAJ KUMAR AND ANR 76.
CWP-24975-2021
RAMA SHANKAR AND ANR 77.
CWP-24978-2021 NAZIR SINGH AND ANR 78.
CWP-24982-2021 GIAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 79.
CWP-24993-2021 SANDEEP AND ANOTHER 80.
CWP-25218-2021
TEJ PAL AND ANOTHER CWP-3406-2022 ROHTASH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 82.
CWP-18999-2023 THE GOVT. OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT BABU RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER 83.
CWP-8351-2024 RATTANA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 84.
CWP-4530-2020
BALWANT AND ANOTHER 85.
CWP-26215-2014 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KAITHAL & ANR ....PETITIONERS HAWA SINGH & ORS 86.
CWP-10588-2018 (O&M) THE GOVT. OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT DHARAM PAL AND ANOTHER 87.
CWP-4355-2019 GOVT. OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT TARSEM AND ANR.
88.
CWP-4402-2019
GOVT. OF HARYANA, FOREST DEPARTMENT. ....PETITIONER RAMESHWAR AND ANR.
89.
CWP-4325-2020 JOGINDER AND ANOTHER CWP-4595-2020 KARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER 91.
CWP-13305-2021 .... PETITIONER JAGDEEP SINGH AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 92.
CWP-13306-2021 .... PETITIONER
JAGDEV AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 93.
CWP-13307-2021 .... PETITIONER CHANDI RAM AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENTS 94.
CWP-13308-2021 .... PETITIONER RAM PHAL AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 95.
CWP-13309-2021 .... PETITIONER RESHMA DEVI AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 96.
CWP-13310-2021 .... PETITIONER
NARESH KUMAR AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 97.
CWP-13311-2021 .... PETITIONER SUBHASH AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 98.
CWP-13313-2021 .... PETITIONER RAMESHO DEVI AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 99.
CWP-13323-2021 .... PETITIONER BALKAR SINGH AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENTS 100.
CWP-13414-2021 .... PETITIONER
PARAMJEET SINGH AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 101.
CWP-13444-2021 .... PETITIONER JAILO ALIAS JAILLA AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS 102.
CWP-13458-2021 .... PETITIONER PHOOLWATI AND ANR .... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl.A.G., Haryana and Ms. Harsh Rekha Kapoor, AAG, Haryana for the petitioner.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate and Mr. Ram Bhati, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-26215-2014.
Mr. D.S.Bajwa, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-24974-2021.
Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate (through VC) for the respondent in CWP-14087-2017.
Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-14087-2017, CWP-27640- 2017,
CWP-8351-2024, CWP-33229-2019, CWP-4530-2020. Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP-28496-2017.
Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-12737-2019, CWP-7574 & CWP-13146 of 2021.
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP-13306-2021, CWP-133072021, CWP-1869-2020, CWP- 4595-2020, CWP-127752019, CWP-13142-2021. Mr. Chander Pal Tiwana, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-13458-2021 and CWP- 13154-2021.
Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP-24993-2021, CWP- 24971-2021, CWP-4325-2020, CWP-13310-2021 Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP-12739-2019, CWP-127372019, CWP-14685-2021, CWP-7329-2021, CWP-131472021, CWP-13150-2021, CWP-27643-2017, CWP-44022019, CWP-4355-2019, CWP-4325-2024, CWP-249822021. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Aryavart, Advocate & Mr. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate For respondent No. 1 in CWP-7574-2021, CWP-7572-2021, CWP-7329-2021, CWP-13139-2021, CWP-13147-2021, CWP-13163-2021, CWP-14685-2021, CWP-24863-2021, CWP-3321-2022, CWP-3394-2022, CWP-3295-2022, CWP24971-2021, CWP-10588-2018, CWP-4325-2020, CWP6335-2018, CWP-27640-2017, CWP-27642-2017, CWP27643-2017, CWP-27734-2017, CWP-27740-2017, CWP21853-2017, CWP-28496-2017, CWP-28886-2017, CWP6307-2018, CWP-6308-2018, CWP-9411-2019, CWP22036-2017, CWP-14087-2017, CWP-33185-2019, CWP33229-2019, CWP-12077-2018, CWP-33191-2019, CWP36866-2019, CWP-1855-2020, CWP-1858-2020, CWP-
1868-2020.
Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Bansal, Advocate for the respondent in CWP-6335-2018, CWP-22006-2017, CWP-28496-2017, CWP-6308-2018, CWP-14087-2017, CWP-12739-2019, CWP-33172-2019, CWP-33185-2019, CWP-33229-2019, CWP-33354-2019, CWP-33182-2019, CWP-33191-2019, CWP-1865-2020, CWP-1868-2020, CWP-7572-2021, CWP-13139-2021, CWP-13140-2021, CWP-13145-2021, CWP-13147-2021, CWP-13150-2021, CWP-13610-2021, CWP-13603-2021, CWP-14684-2021, CWP-3321-2022, CWP-3332-2022, CWP-3351-2022, CWP24970-2021, CWP-24972-2021, CWP-24975-2021, CWP24978-2021, CWP-10588-2018, CWP-4402-2019, CWP13307-2021, CWP-13308-2021, CWP-13309-2021, CWP13313-2021, CWP-13323-2021, CWP-13414-2021. **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.
By this common order, the above-mentioned petitions are disposed of as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-22006-2017.
2.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated 29.09.2016 (Annexure P/7) whereby Labour Court has answered reference in favour of the workmen.
3.
The petitioner is Forest Department of State of Haryana and respondent No.1 is a workman. The workman from June' 1989 to September' 2014 worked with various forest guards and range officers. He was paid wages at DC rate. The petitioner discontinued to avail service of workman from September' 2014. The action of management
compelled the workman to approach Labour Court. It was not one workman who was discontinued whereas a number of workmen were discontinued. A number of matters came to be referred to Labour Court by way of reference in terms of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act').
4.
The Labour Court framed the following issues for its consideration :
"1.
Whether the termination of the services of workman is liable to be set-aside being wrong, illegal, null and void etc. and the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and all the benefits including the continuity of service? OPW 2.
Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and respondent no. 2? OPM-2 3.
Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form? OPM 4.
Relief"
5.
The management as well as workmen led their evidence. The management was primarily contending that there is no employer employee relation because workmen were engaged through contractor. It was further pleaded that the workman had not completed 240 days during the preceding 12 months, thus, they were not entitled to protection
extended by Section 25B read with 25F of ID Act. The management as its last limb of arguments pleaded that no workman was working for more than 06 months in a particular year because it was a seasonal work, thus, in view of provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of ID Act, they were not entitled to protection of Section 25F.
6.
The management in support of its arguments could not produce documents proving that workers had not completed 240 days during the preceding year or they were engaged through contractor or they were engaged for a part of the year.
7.
Considering the pleadings and arguments of both sides, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that engagement of contractor was a camouflage and mere eye wash on the part of management. There was no compliance of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The Court also concluded that workers have continuously worked with management, thus, they are entitled to protection guaranteed by Section 25B and 25F of ID Act. 8.
With the aforesaid findings, the Labour Court ordered to reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages.
9.
In this bunch of petitions, there are stray cases where there is order of interest or costs apart from back wages. 10.
Learned counsel for workmen submits that workmen are working with management since 2017. They were re-engaged by management after passing the impugned awards. They are regularly
getting wages, thus, the question left for adjudication by this Court is quantum of back wages.
11.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl.A.G., Haryana, concedes that except very few, the respondents are working with petitioner. They have been re-engaged and continuously working since 2017. He submits that Labour Court has wrongly awarded 50% back wages and this Court should modify said relief because management has honourably re-engaged workmen and is regularly paying wages. The petitioner is a department of State Government. Question whether petitioner falls within definition of 'industry' is pending before a 9 Judge Bench of Supreme Court.
12.
I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13.
The conceded position emerging from record is that the workmen worked with management from 1989 to 2014. There are few workers who had worked even for a larger period than the said period, thus, it can be safely concluded that most of the workers have worked, prior to their retrenchment, for more than 20 years with the petitioner. They were not working anywhere else. They were retrenched without complying with provisions of Section 25B and 25F of ID Act. Neither they were issued charge-sheet nor any enquiry was conducted prior to their retrenchment.
14.
This Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2015 has decided a
bunch of petitions filed by the petitioner itself. The issue involved in those petitions was identical to issue involved in the present case. The petitioner herein is trying to plead that workers were engaged through contractor, thus, there was no master-servant relation between the petitioner and the respondents. The management could not prove before Labour Court that workers were engaged through contractor. This Court cannot consider any new evidence. In any case, concededly the workers have worked for more than two decades with management, thus, it would be unfair and unjustified to deny them protection of Section 25B and 25F of ID Act especially when management is government itself. The petitioner being government is a model employer and is expected not to exploit its citizen. It cannot adopt unfair labour practices. As per entry No.
10 of 5th Schedule of ID Act, if a workman is engaged on casual or temporary basis with intent to deny him benefits available to a permanent employee, it amounts to unfair labour practice. The petitioner had engaged workers for more than two decades and even today, they are working with petitioner but they are engaged sometimes through contractor, sometimes as casual and sometimes as temporary. The act of petitioner falls within definition of unfair labour practices. 15.
The petitioner has accepted judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed in CWP No.7018 of 2015, thus, it cannot take stand contrary to aforesaid judgement. As per principles of uniformity, consistency and binding precedent, this Court is bound to follow aforesaid judgment. Furthermore, the petitioner has re-engaged workmen, thus, dispute of
reinstatement does not survive. The question remains of back wages. The petitioner is claiming that 50% back wages are on higher side especially when workers had not worked with management and they were working for a part of the year.
16.
On being confronted with aforesaid prayer of the petitioner, learned counsels for the respondents submit that they leave it to Court to decide the quantum of back wages.
17.
Considering the fact that workmen have already been reengaged, they are working since their re-engagement and they had not worked during the period from retrenchment to reinstatement, this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the amount of back wages from 50% to 30%. The said amount shall be paid within three months from today and it would not carry interest.
18.
There are a few workers who are not re-engaged. The petitioner claims that they have not been re-engaged because of filing of false affidavits, however, the said fact is disputed by counsel for respondents. The petitioner shall re-consider claim of those workers who have not been re-engaged. They would be paid back wages @ 30% from the date of retrenchment to date of award.
19.
It is made clear that if petitioner has already released back wages, no recovery in terms of this order shall be effected. If back wages are not paid within three months from today, the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% from the expiry of aforesaid period of three months.
20.
Disposed of in above terms.
21.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 05.09.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No