IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.237 of 2008 Date of decision : 3rd September, 2008 Mrs. Adarsh Dogra … Petitioner Versus Bhartiya Grameen Mahila Samiti and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Mrs. Adarsh Dogra praying that award dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Labour Court Gurdaspur be set aside and petitioner be reinstated on her post with continuity of service with full back wages. Petitioner-workman served a demand notice (Annexure P-2) on 10.12.1998. It was stated therein that she was appointed as a Bal Sewika w.e.f. 16.11.1976 in the pay scale applicable to Punjab Government and was posted in Awankha centre under the supervision of respondent No.2. It was stated that she was granted scale of Rs.850-1800. She was not paid any wages from 01.04.1992 onwards, which led her to approach Labour Court for payment of salary and revision of pay scale upto 30.09.1994. She was not paid amount of Rs.77,400/-, which was due to her as arrears of wages. Petitioner-workman had filed another application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’), which was decided vide Annexure P-1 and it was ordered that she be paid arrears of CWP 237 of 2008 salary from 01.10.1994 to 30.09.1998 and according to this computation, she was paid Rs.1,11,843/-. It was further stated that this annoyed the management and gram panchayat Awankha was directed to close the centre. Closure of the centre named as ‘Awankha Balwari Centre’ led to termination of services of the petitioner on 30.09.1998. It was further stated that juniors to the petitioner namely Smt. Raj and Ranjit Kaur were working with the respondents. On the demand notice, following reference was made by the State of Punjab to the Labour Court: “Whether termination of services of Adarsh Dogra workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/ exact amount of compensation is she entitled?” It was urged before the Labour Court that by closing down the Awankha Balwari Centre, services of the petitioner were terminated. She was paid no retrenchment compensation or wages in lieu of notice period. No inquiry was held. It was further stated that persons junior to the workman were working in different Balwari Centres. Respondents, in the written statement admitted that workman was appointed as Balwari Sewika on a consolidated pay. It was denied that the workman was paid any grade. It was further stated that the workman was paid upto 30.09.1994 in pursuance of Labour Court order dated 19.11.1997. After the written statement was filed, following issues were framed by the Labour Court: 1. Whether the reference is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objections of workman statement? OPR. 2. Whether the respondent does not fell within the definition of Industry under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947? OPR. 3. Whether the termination of the workman is justified and in order? OPR. 4. Relief. 2 CWP 237 of 2008 Thereafter, Labour Court concluded that since the Centre was closed, therefore, the retrenchment of the workman was quite justified and in order. Counsel for the petitioner has urged and specifically pleaded that no retrenchment compensation was paid. Section 25-F of the Act was not adhered to and therefore, provisions of Section 25 (FFF) of the Act, on closure of the Centre, were to be complied with and compensation provided under the Act was to be awarded to the workman. Since this important aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court and the compensation, which ought to have been paid to the workman, has not been computed, we have no other option except to determine the compensation, which ought to have been awarded to the workman under Section 25 (FFF) of the Act. It has been stated that petitioner-workman has worked for 22 years. Therefore she is entitled to retrenchment compensation. According to the workman, her last drawn salary was Rs.3120/- per month when the Centre was closed on 30.09.1998. In Mehboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gujraula and another (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 575, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [See M.P. Admn v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748].” This Court also in recent judgments, in CWP No. 10552 of 2006 titled Municipal Corporation Faridabad vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad and another decided on 12th March, 2008 and CWP No. 7996 of 2006 titled Haryana State Agricultural marketing Board Panchkula vs. Bahadur and another decided on December 3, 3 CWP 237 of 2008 2007, has held that the fact that re-instatement of workman cannot be ordered, to balance equities monetary compensation can be granted to the workman. We hold that the workman is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- (which can be computed as 3120/ 2 = 1560 x 22 = 34320), which will include interest and costs also. The amount assessed shall be paid to the workman within two months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner-workman will be entitled to interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the date amount is due to her. With these observations, present writ petition is disposed off. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 03, 2008 rps 4