IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9794 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.09.2009 Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.L.Arora, Advocate, with Ms. Deepa Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with 50% back wages. The order of termination dated 24.02.1983 was found to be bad by the fact that the retrenchment compensation and the monthly wages had not been paid from the date when the termination was to be effective and it was admittedly received by the workman only on 22.04.1983. The Labour Court found that there had been non-compliance of Section 25-F and directed reinstatement. As regards the back wages, the Court found that although he had failed to prove that he remained unemployed throughout, he could not have survived without earning and found that he was entitled to only 50% back wages. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the management would Civil Writ Petition No.9794 of 2009 - 2 - contend that the notice had been issued on 22.04.1983 terminating his services and when he was evading the receipt, they again wrote a letter on 19.04.1983 that he was being relieved (retrospectively) w.e.f. 19.03.1983. The learned counsel wanted to contend that the Labour Court's findings that there had been an unlawful termination of service and there was non-compliance of Section 25-F, were wrong and relied, in support of his contention, a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Jha and others Versus State of Bihar and others-2003(4) SCC 619. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a retrenchment compensation has to be offered to the workman sought to be retrenchment simultaneously and an offer of retrenchment compensation after retrenchment will vitiate the retrenchment. The exception which the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted was when the retrenchment compensation was deliberately not received by the workman, it could not vitiate such offer. In that case, the Court found that the workman was given advance notice of retrenchment and duly informed that the amount of retrenchment compensation would be ready with the cashier in advance which the workman could collect at any time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such a situation, it amounted to sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F. The Court held that the object of retrenchment compensation was not only to the reward of previous service of employee but also a sustenance to a workman to the period which he may spend in search of employment. This rendering would come to the help of the management if the management had placed any evidence to show that the letter of termination dated Civil Writ Petition No.9794 of 2009 - 3 - 24.02.1983 had been actually dispatched on that day or the workman had notice of terminated to be effective from 31.03.1983. Even the letter dated 19.04.1983 merely records the fact that the workman was being relieved w.e.f. 19.03.1983. The letter merely states the fact that the workman had not bothered to comply with the order but does not state anywhere that the notice issued on 24.02.1983 was deliberately being evaded by the workman. One thing is clear that the payment of retrenchment compensation and the notice said to have been issued on 24.02.1983 was received by the workman only on 22.04.1983. If the receipt of compensation was not simultaneous with the date of termination and if there had been also no proof that the receipt was deliberately delayed by the workman, the inevitable consequence is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in the same judgment that if the retrenchment compensation and the retrenchment were not simultaneous, the retrenchment compensation paid after such retrenchment would vitiate the retrenchment. The ultimate award of the Labour Court, in the light of absence of any particular specific evidence by the management that the workman had been deliberately evading service, was perfectly justified. 3. The learned counsel also contends that the grant of 50% back wages was erroneous in view of the evidence that was available before the Labour Court that the workman had been doing agriculture and he had 1 ¼ killas of land to work on. He had also admitted in his evidence that he had two buffaloes and he had income from the milk that he gained from them. His evidence was also to the effect that he had no Civil Writ Petition No.9794 of 2009 - 4 - technical qualification and he was merely a graduate and he had denied a specific suggestion that he was gainfully employed. The direction for payment of 50% back wages was also justified. 4. If the order of termination was bad, the issue of retrenchment would be taken only in the context of whether it would be possible to reinstate him after 25 years. It transpires that if he had been in service, he would have been superannuated in June, 2009. The learned counsel appearing for the workman refers to several offers made even during the pendency of the proceedings to resume work which was not however afforded to him inspite of the direction for reinstatement contained in the award. Although the order of termination was bad, the direction for reinstatement cannot be now done in view of subsequent event of the workman having reached the age of superannuation. The award of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is confirmed in all respects except that the workman shall not be entitled to reinstatement as of now, he having reached the age of superannuation. He shall, however, be entitled to 50% back wages as granted by the Labour Court and he will also draw all the terminal benefits treating him as having been superannuated on the date when he would have reached the age of superannuation. The direction for payment of interest as made by the Labour Court also stands confirmed by this order. 5. Subject to above modification, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 08.09.2009 sanjeev