High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/6483/2014disposed of

Bachni Devi v. Principal Secretary And Others

2023-10-12Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger13 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-6483-2014 (O&M) BACHNI DEVI

...Petitioner

Versus

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

...Respondents

(2) CWP-902-2019 (O&M) Date of decision :12.10.2023 BACHNI DEVI

...Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT LABOR COMMISSIONER, PATIALA, DISTRICT PATIALA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

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

Mr. Narender Singh Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J.

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP-6483-2014 titled as Bachni Devi vs Principal Secretary and others and CWP-902-2019 titled as Bachni Devi vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and others, as the relief sought in these petitions is inter-related.

CWP-6483-2014 titled as Bachni Devi vs Principal Secretary and others, has been filed by petitioner-Bachni Devi, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-13) ; whereby the claim for regularization of her services had

been rejected by the District Education Officer (SE) Patiala by holding that she was being paid from school funds and her appointment had not been made under any norms.

Vide CWP-902-2019 titled as Bachni Devi vs Assistant Labor Commissioner, Patiala, District Patiala, the petitioner is seeking quashing of impugned Award dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-10) to the extent whereby, she was not held entitled to relief of re-instatement with back wages and instead, she was granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. 4.

Briefly, the petitioner is stated to have been appointed on 01.01.1993 as Chowkidar-cum-Peon in the Government High School, Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (respondent No.4). Petitioner claims that she approached the Management for her absorption in the vacant post of Peon on regular basis by submitting a representation dated 01.12.2011; however, since no response was received in that regard, accordingly, she filed CWP-1471-2012 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in her representation. It appears that vide order dated 02.05.2012 passed by respondent No.3-District Education Officer (Sr. Sec.), Patiala , the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Order dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-13) is subject matter of challenge in CWP-6483-2014.

The petitioner claims that subsequently, respondent No.4Principal Government High School, Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, informed her that her services are no more required and hence, the same were terminated on 08.01.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 22.02.2013;

whereupon, the conciliation proceedings were conducted. However, the then Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala passed an order dated 23.05.2013, rejecting the demand notice of the petitioner; whereupon, she instituted an appeal, which was also dismissed on 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-8).

Being dis-satisfied against the orders dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) and 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-25108-2013, which was allowed by setting aside the afore-said orders dated 23.05.2013 and 05.09.2013 and a direction was issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala to send a report to the appropriate government, as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as `the Act, 1947'). It was further directed that the appropriate government shall thereafter act upon the report strictly in accordance with law in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act, 1947. 7.

It appears that thereafter, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. 8.

The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, vide Award dated 16.10.2018 answered the reference in favour of the workman. However, the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief of reinstatement with back wages and instead compensation of Rs.10,000/- was awarded to her.

Accordingly, the petitioner has impugned the afore-stated Award dated 16.10.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, before this Court in the present writ petition. 10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Tribunal below has erred in law and facts in not granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages to the petitioner despite holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947.

11.

It is submitted that the petitioner was a regular employee for the last more than 20 years with the respondent-Management so her services were liable to be restored. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal below has acted arbitrarily in denying the relief to the petitioner and instead granted a meagre compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief could not have been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that her appointment was not made in accordance with the relevant statutory Recruitment Rules. 12.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed after following the due process of law and that it was not a regular appointment. It is submitted that although, the termination of the services of the petitioner has been held to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947; however, it is well settled that merely on that account, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement. Learned State counsel has supported the Award passed by the learned Tribunal below by submitting that an appropriate relief has already been granted to the petitioner and no further interference is required to be made in the said Award. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the instant writ petition has been made.

13.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

14.

! "

#$ %

& ' %() "

$ *& +

## , - ).

# &

%))/ # / & *&

, -

$ 1

# & $ ' %() #

!*$$

$ &

#$ !

$$ &

3 -

# *&

$$ &4&

5 +

! ##

$ $ ! 6

0 - ! '# ! $

$ , - ).))0,8$

* /

# &

& # &

). # &

# #

$ $ $ *

# &

## &

*&$ *

& 3

# 3

9 $!

# * *

# &

$ &

) . # &

$ :

& # & $ $

& $ &

& $ #

;

# &

$0,8$

0, # &

;2< # # * ;

3 -

0, 8$

#$ $ ))

))

# &

#*&

= ,#

;2>

;# & ;2

! $ *

# #&

#- $ !

;2>!# #&

;2>5! ;2>=

* *&

;2>4!;2>%!;2>/!;2>!;2>4!;2>!;2>5

),4

*& 7

$ # $ :

*;2>

# #&

# *&7

?* -$ ;2>

# #&

*& ?* -$ ;2>5

# #&

3 ;$

;2>=

# 3

3 # *& #

#/ & !

*4)%) $)%);2>%

# #&

$ 5 ))

0,8$ 1

$ #

# &

$$ & ))/)) 4 #

*$ # *

# "

# 5 &

% $

, - ). # &

# "

*%))

;

! #

=)8 $ 3 #$ , ! 5% !

=)8 $ 3 #$ , ! 5%

*$ ! $ $& 1)

=)8 $ 3 #$ , !5%! $ &

$ *

* $

& $ !

?* $# -$

! "##

?* $# -$ #$ *&

* # *& # & ' =()

# & @$ #$* ;# &

*& $

$ > @$ * ##

, - ). # &

*& "> $ 0

## , - ). # &

# ## #

$ :

&# ) # & ## * &

# ,

5 A4- $ !

?* $# -$ $ % &' ( ) *

! "

$ !

' %() "

# "

# *$&

! $

* $*)

# ' !()

* #

# ,

$ #

# ' !()!

# "

+ , -

& *

' !() B'$#

$ &C 5= &

#$*

D4E# $

8 *

# F ! "

#$ "

'()!* !

+ ./!*0 1 1223 ,

& '()

) +, *! 4%% *'* 0 1 51

$ $ ! $ ! ( !#-!

$ !!

+*'* 6 . / 01 ,

! " 2 # G $ $

=)8

$ 3 #$ , ! 5% B G

3 , GCH0

@$ !7 !* 8! 9 '!.

$ -$! $ B'"6

!IC

-$! &!( .: (/ ! ( * -

*! % &9 ! 8 ;7*97! + / *9 - ;! ,9 ! 9

89* +*! <8 8* ' &9 *7

7 ' /! *$<=9 JBI *

!--##A=# %A5C G% $

$ &

# &

$* !

$ *

$ &

# !

! -$

*& & *

$ & * & ###

# &

* #

$ -#

<<< <<< <<<

5 $ * ! $ !

! -$

=)8 $ &* *$ $ !

& #

$ *

# 5 & &

! # $ &! &)

$ * ## *& -$

0 -$

& # # # &

G 5 I *

& ;

!* *&9 !

-$ JB--#%%%!# C G

& *$ = &

! *

* * $

# $ $*

3 + ./.*99 $ 1# > ;#5? , !

#& '()

$ " !

01 % " # G= > $ !

&) $ *

$ $ *$#

# # :

& $

& * $

# $ $ :

$ # &*$

$ * $

$ #

! $ *

$ &

* ! $

* G 01 ,

4 *7

7 ' /! *$ <=9 0 3 1 2"2 + / *9 - ;! ,9 0 3 2 "2 <8 8* '&90 3 # 1 ' " 2 $

! ,

$ -

$ !

#$ 5

#+6!+ 7

8 "

! " "

!-+ +

# .

@ A5A15 ! 0"

+! "

4 $

9: +"

# # " ., ;#/ ! ;

;

@ A5A15

! !

.@ A5A15/

# -

!/ @ A #3>A1# %

@ A #3>A1#filed by petitionerBachni Devi, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-13); whereby the claim for regularization of her services had been rejected by the District Education Officer (SE) Patiala, is concerned; since it has been observed here-in-above in CWP-902-2019 that order for reinstatement may not be passed in such a case; thus the question of regularization of services of the petitioner, as claimed by her in the present petition, does not arise. 2.

Accordingly, the present petition i.e. CWP-6483-2014 filed by the petitioner, seeking her regularization is dismissed, in view of order passed in CWP-902-2019 here-in-above.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case.

October 12th, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No