In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No. 467 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.4.2013 [ENTITY] Ludhiana. Appellant Versus [ENTITY]-I and Another Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the appellant.
[ENTITY], Acting Chief Justice (Oral) Respondent No.2/workman challenged termination of his service on 3.1.2004 before the Labour Court, Chandigarh on a ground that action taken do not conform to the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After taking note of evidence brought on record, it was found as a matter of fact by the Labour Court that before termination of his service, in the preceding 12 months, the workman had worked for more than 240 days. It was specifically noticed that the management has failed to show that the workman was absent. Admittedly, termination was done without complying with the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. The Labour Court ordered that the workman be reinstated in service with back wages at the same position where he was working at the time of his termination. That award was challenged in this Court.
The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 8.1.2013, upheld that award, passed by the Labour Court. It was specifically noted that there was complete violation of the provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. Juniors to the workman were retained in service and more were employed without offering service to him. The learned Single Judge, when dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, has observed as under:-
"In support of his claim, the workman produced documents on record to prove that on 30.4.2007 as many as 22 temporary Chowkidars were working in different offices under the control of the management. Therefore, the principle of last-come-first-go postulated in [SECTION] of the Act was not followed. Violations of the provisions of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act are as critical as non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. They are at par for their power and effect. There has been a cumulative violation of all procedural safeguards enshrined in the Act in the present case. Therefore, the reentry of the workman to service and entitlement to back-wages subject to enhanced rates as ordered by the Labour Court is unexceptionable and in order. The management cannot be permitted to take a stand that it violated its own policy in making the appointment which banned recruitment of part time Chowkidars, then exploit a man for 5 years only to suddenly wake up and throw the man out citing unwritten history-{policy not produced}- without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act. This would bring legislation itself to disrepute torn at every factory gate. The Court must act in aid of the law and not mull over its breach.
Reliance placed by Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of the learned Single Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 15.7.2009; [PRECEDENT] dealing with illegal or irregular entry of workman to public service following the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] is not applicable to the case in hand in view of the direct law laid down by the Supreme Court recently on the point-in-issue in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]."
At the time of arguments, it was only stated that instead of ordering reinstatement in service, compensation should have been granted to the respondent/workman.
We are not inclined to agree with the prayer made. It is a case where service of workman was terminated in the year 2004 without complying with the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. His juniors were retained in service and thereafter more were employed without offering service to the poor workman.
Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], which is of no help to the appellant. In that case, service of the workman was ordered to be reinstated after 25 years. However, in the present case, immediately after termination of his service, the respondent/workman approached the Labour Court and despite an order of his reinstatement passed in his favour, he has not been taken into service.
Under the circumstances, no case is made out to cause interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
([ENTITY]) Acting Chief Justice ([ENTITY]) Judge April 12, 2013 "DK"