← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23524/2017dismissed

Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Ropar And Others v. Labh Singh And Another

2024-04-30Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth12 pages

  !"#$%!&$ '()( *(%+( ( (!( *#(% ',-.% /011 ',-./,( / 2 3 4/1  5  1 5 !

2 %/  1 6/ 756,/ ,/ *5 585/  /  %

     * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

756;4 -; 55;/ < 

1 1    * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

45/56:

5 5;/   

1 1

  * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

5/5.:

 -;55 ;/  

1 1 

=  * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

'5 />5,/ 55;/  

1 1   * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

5/ ;>, .5/ 55 ;/  = 1 1

 < <   * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

450 / >5,/55 ;/   

1 1     * ,9.

.

/2 2/3% 5/ ,:565 ;/

(.5/:

4 -;

55;/   

1 1

  = 5/ ;>, .5/ /

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

 = 1 1 = =  = 458 / >5,/ /

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

  

1 1    = 45/56:

4 -;

/

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

  

1 1  <  = (.5/:

4 -;

/

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

  

1 1  < = '5 />5,/ /

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

 

1 1



< = 756;4 -;

/

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

< 

1 1 1 < = = 5/5.:

4 -;

/

 -  /3,

/ 52!/ 6,523 5 5255 ;/

 

1 1 %(  ?)7"%1'$4!"4( '(+@(44! (%#$"*)+ &/45A55-.       &/ /B.5      



  

!





  " 



 #

 $ %&'%%&('%))*%+%'%+*% %+*&%+,( -*.%(/    



 #

 $ *,)*&*,)*0*,)&.*,)+' *,)0' -*.%0 4( '(+@(44!3'1 % - 

%&1 2

1 

- - 21 #/  *& .) *.%02 34

 !  5

"56   #

-- 7!  8/1 1

   -

  

  

 %. #%/  # /  -    4

  2 %(&0#-  7 -%(&08/ 2



 - "

    13  "

-    

  -  

 #/   



1





- 

*)5: - -%(&0 

3    

 1 

3 -

6,8 ;,65B85-

; -- "

%&2

2

"

     .%    .0      -  3   923

""



#  / 2# /

# " /- 



 -2 1 #/2 3!  1 2

  "

       .'    %&      -  3   #/

"

-

-1 3 

-

1  1 6

- 2 





1 2

3<"

 -1 2 3   !    1 

       



  2  -

1

1- -  

!      -  -2



 

3 

2

-   - 3 ;5 5 25   1 

-

= 2 - 

" 3

"   , 

5923 ""



#  / 2 

  #

  " /    -    2  1   2

 



1  *& .) *.%0#

<5%/2 3

   !  5 "56        13  -

*%+ -*..'



%.#%/# / - -%(&0

1 23

-  -2



%56

#1 / &   -1 - 6    1   1  " 9> 3;2 - "%% %% %((% ,.

.+ %(()  " -"

- "

1 1

1

3 - ,...?52"

 !

 -1

1"

 1 - ,.

.+ %(()1   3



23 

"

"2 

:2   " - 1 "2 3

 2

 1

1  " !1 23 - 

"



1  

3

- 1  "



1

 2

2 

) !

    2

   "   -   1 

" 

2 " - 

 - "

31

  

 



2  3 12 

 -1 1 -

  

-  "

2 22

 

2

-  - 

-    2

 3    1   

< !  -" - 

 < 

   ., .'

*.%. ".

Whether the services of workman, were terminated illegally by the respondents?OPW .

Whether the reference is not maintainable?OPM  Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this reference?OPM . Whether the reference time barred?OPM  Whether the dispute between the parties is not covered under the definition of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?OPM . Relief"

+   -

 -1  "

22- 6  

-  12



<52

   %( .0 *.%% ;

"

22

 %, .( *.%%3 " 

<52 1 

3





- -1



*, %.

*.%*2

- 22



  

    "   1  

 2

  

  <52 

2

-<521  .% .& *.%&

-  -1



22

- 



 -<521  1  "

   1

  1  1   1

 *% %* *.%)        23"

 - ,...?5

-

1 

 -

 

"

1 - 1 2



 $5%&.&  -  *.%+  1

  1 

 

    

.* .* *.%+ @ "3   - 9



 -



# 

A3 A

 /

6

+(% -*.%+



  .) .& *.%+A

89



; 

 "We thus allow this appeal in part and modify the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned Single Judge as well as the Labour Court1cum1Industrial Tribunal dated 21.12.2015 and direct respondent No.2 to 4 to pay the cost of Rs.20,000/1 to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Labour Court1cum1 Industrial Tribunal is directed to accord only limited opportunities, i.e. not more than two or three, to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to lead their evidence"

-



"

 "2  39



 -  # 

A3 A

 /2

 - 

-



-

-

3 

 !  

 % )

 3 '

$ 22

1  <$$%1

2   2



 2    -1  1

1 

"

"

   -



- 

 2



#B"

/ 



  23"   #-/  $   2      

"2  *&.

3  -  

 

 2

  3  - "      - "

( ;

 

 " 2

 

 



2#$%/1 

  --

 >< %





 -1 1

  



"

 3

*#

/#/ - -%(&01 

 -  3 -   C

!

 --  

 9 > 3 ;2  

.* .% %((*

"



, '

>< %

3   

 ". That you will be given Rs.2.50/1 per Khewat  That this is purely a contract job.

.

that after reviewing the performance in first two months, the contract can further be extended at the discretion of the undersigned.  That you have to maintain strict discipline in the computer centre and any act of indiscipline will result in termination of contract. Absence from duty without prior sanction will result in cancellation of contract and you will be liable to pay Rs.500/1 as damages to the undersigned.

That the commencement of contract is from 1111111991.

The offer does not vest any right on part of operator to claim any preferential right for further absorption."

%.

: ""  



 6   "     

   - "    5<"

-  $%  

"   >< % 

   --    3  

  923

""



 2  

  

""

- "

%% %% %((% : " 2

-

1  

"  1 1  

 - ".* .% %((* ,.

.+ %(()



2

1<

- " " " ! !  

 1 

"2 "

 *&. 3 -



= 2

3- "  - "



 - 1 2  - "--

 >< $,'

D -3

- 32    

 



-   C

           31

 

   12  - "



"  



>< $% >< $,0 %%  "  



 

2   

   -  

" 

3 6  

 #>< $*(/1

"

1  

"2 C

-



1 

"2  - --- > 1 #>< $,+/ 



1

 1 

 



-2  -9> 3;2 3



 

"

6    "3  



1 -1 



-

-

*#/ - -%(&0

- 

22   2

E

 !

 "#$ % &% &'!'()* +!,-  2 2 *)

*0 -



" 2

 1 ..

In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the respondent engaged the appellant, who was already in its employment, as a Clerk for a period of six months on contract basis on consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/1 per month At the end of six months, the respondent passed another resolution dated 30.11.1995 and again employed the appellant for a period of six months from 1.11.1995 to 20.4.1996. This exercise was repeated in 1996 and the

 appellant's term was extended for six months from 1.5.1996. However, his engagement was discontinued w.e. 30.9.1996 without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation as per the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 251 F of the Act. It is true that the engagement of the appellant was not preceded by an advertisement and consideration of the competing claims of other eligible persons but that exercise could not be undertaken by the respondent because of the ban imposed by the StateGovernment. It is surprising that the Division Bench of the High Court did not notice this important facet of the employment of the appellant and decided the writ petition by assuming that his appointment/engagement was contrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

We may also add that failure of the Director, Local Self Government, Punjab to convey his approval to the resolution of the respondent could not be made a ground for bringing an end to the engagement of the appellant and that too without complying with the mandate of Section 251F (a) and (b).

It has been further held as under :

"  The plea of the respondent that the action taken by it is covered by Section 2(00) (bb) was clearly misconceived and was rightly not entertained by the Labour Court because no material was produced by the respondent to show that the engagement of the appellant was discontinued by relying upon the terms and conditions of the employment".

1 !  3 



   -  

   3   

 

"2

-*&.1

331

2

3   -"

F

 1<

- " " "

1  

"2 C

 < 

"2  



-

 " 1 -



3 6 



  



*#

/#/ - -%(&0

 

22

 

  

-  " "

 4

 9 2    1

1







 3

  1 "

-   -

 - 3

 "

3%(()

- A 1 -

1- -  

3*..'

!  

 3 %& 3

-



2 %& ;

 2   -

 3 6 

1  3

 - 

 

- 

  3"

3 -  1  1  4 1 

  

1 - 

" -1



3 

 -

3 -





1       1

!-   1  

   -

  6   3"





31



  -

%) -

 

"2 -2



 



1 3 6  

 - 



- 2    



 3

-

1 1 2 36   

301 2

- 3 " 

0

 1 2

- 31 #/5/;/69

.

 %+ 

 "

   22

 

  3 

  - "

%&1 2



 

3 4( '(+@(44! '$*#"

( / 2 3 "

$2

?

+ A  $2 G + A