Civil Writ Petition No. 2964 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No. 2964 of 2006 Date of decision:-02.09.2011 State of Haryana ...Petitioner Versus Sher Singh and another ...Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 2962 of 2006 Date of decision:- State of Haryana ...Petitioner Versus Satyapal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl.A.G. Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Dhull, Advocate for respondent No.1. RITU BAHRI J. Both the aforesaid writ petitioner are on same grounds, so, the same are being taken up together. For the sake of convenience, the facts from CWP No.2964 are being taken up. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned award dated Civil Writ Petition No. 2964 of 2006 -2- 15.6.2005 (Annexure P-5) in CWP No.2964 of 2006 and the impugned award dated 13.6.2005 (Annexure P-5) in CWP No.2962 of 2006. Brief facts of the case are that nearly 1500 persons were engaged by the General Managers of Haryana Roadways from open market in order to provide transport services to the general public. The strike in the Department continued about 13 days. After the strike was over, the State Government decided to take back all the workers, who had been dismissed during the strike period. Since all these persons, who had worked during strike and had provided help to the State Government, they were considered for employment against future vacancies. A detailed policy guideline was framed and some persons were adjusted as per available vacancies as per policy. Such guidelines were issued on 28.1.1994 by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana and it was decided to constitute a Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional State Transport Controller © alongwith technical officer. They were to examine the qualifications and the past experience and then make recommendations depot-wise and certain guidelines were issued to the General Managers in this behalf. The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind appointed 205 conductors during the strike period out of which only 140 actually joined duties. The Screening Committee selected 18 candidates out of the list of 140. Name of the respondent No.1 was not in the list and one Bhagwat Dayal was found suitable amongst 18. Remaining 122 candidates were kept in the waiting list. The list of 18 candidates was sent to the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Riwari for their employment. Amongst the 122 candidates in the waiting list name of respondent No.1 appeared at Serial No.69. As far as name of Shri Bhagwat Dayal is concerned, he was in the initial list prepared by the Jind Depot (Annexure P-7) for appointing Conductors during the strike. As per this list of 205 Conductors name of Bhagwat Dayal came at Serial No.123 and name of Civil Writ Petition No. 2964 of 2006 -3- respondent No.1 came at Serial No.87. For all intents and purposes this was not seniority list. The candidates after the constitution of Screening Committee in the list of first 18 candidates dated 29.9.1994 (Annexure P-8) name of Bhagwat Dayal was at Serial No.10. In pursuant to this selection, name of respondent No.1 does not figure in this initial selection by the Screening Committee. Shri Bhagwat Dayal was appointed and senior to respondent No.1 for all intents and purposes. Name of respondent No.1 figures in the list of remaining candidates in waiting (Annexure P-9). The name of respondent No.1 was figured at Serial No.69 of this list (Annexure P-9), hence, respondent No.1 was never senior to Bhagwat Dayal, who was duly selected in the list of first 18 by the Screening Committee on 29.9.1994. During the pendency of the award respondent No.1 taken back in service on 21.10.2003. The respondents have not chosen to file the reply. Mr. J.P. Dhull, counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the respondent No.1 has joined back the Department in the year 2003 and is continuing till date. The benefit of continuity of service in regularization has not been given in pursuance to the Award passed by the Tribunal. He was not able to dispute the factual position as depicted by the State that Shri Bhagwat Dayal was not junior to respondent No.1. He was selected by the Screening Committee as per list of first 18 candidates as per merit vide Annexure P-8 dated 29.9.1994 for being appointed on regular basis. Name of respondent No.1 figured at Serial No.69 in the list of 122 candidates (Annexure P-9). The respondent No.1 had worked with the Department during strike w.e.f. 1.3.1999 till 6.2.2002. Thereafter, he joined back on 21.10.2003 on contract basis and is continuing as such till date. The issue of seniority between respondent No.1 and Shri Bhagwat Dayal was not an issue before the Tribunal and no evidence was led by the Department to contend that Shri Bhagwat Dayal was senior to respondent No.1. Civil Writ Petition No. 2964 of 2006 -4- The petitioner had worked for five years w.e.f. 1999 to 2004 and the retrenchment compensation @ Rs.1976/- per month within five years comes to Rs.4941/- but this notice had to accompany one salary also in lieu of notice for retrenchment on this count. The finding of the Labour Court that the retrenchment compensation was not adequately paid, therefore, there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Act, is upheld. The Award dated 15.6.2005 (Annexure P-5) is modified to the extent that Shri Bhagwat Dayal had been appointed on regular basis in the list (Annexure P-8) dated 29.9.2004 in which name of respondent No.1-Sher Singh did not find mention. It is held that Sher Singh was not senior to Bhagwat Dayal. The Award on other grounds is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. 02.09.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE