CWP No.6996 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.6996 of 2009 Date of decision October 28, 2009 M/s Sirocco Pressings Pvt Ltd. ....... Petitioner Versus Randhir Singh and another. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The award in challenge is to the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with full back wages. Management passed an order of termination stating that they had lost confidence in the workman and that the workman was offered to receive full and final amounts from the Accounts Department. The order of termination on 25.10.2001 was a sequel to an earlier communication when the charge sheet had been issued on 20.10.2001 stating that the workman had committed an act of subotage by keeping the positive electric wire open so that the person who put the switch on would get an electric shock. Management perception was that it was a ploy by the workman to spite the General Manager against whom the workman had a grudge. To the CWP No.6996 of 2009 2 charge sheet that was issued on 20.10.2001 the workman had responded by means of reply stating that the charge sheet was at the behest of the General Manager, who had a previous grudge against him and caused to prevent him from going into the factory. He had been stopped at the gate on 14.10.2001 and he was falsely implicated in a case by the Police. Admittedly, the Management did not follow the charge sheet and the response to its logical end but decided to terminate the services through a notice as mentioned above. 2. When a reference was sought at the instance of the workman challenging the termination, the Labour Court treated the situation as an open and shut case of a clear violation of Section 25-F, for the Management had adopted the decision to terminate the services of the workman who had admittedly worked for more than 240 days continuously before the date of termination. As a matter of fact, he had admittedly joined duty on 1.4.1995 and he had continuous service for more than six years. The Court therefore, found that in any case where the termination itself was not for any misconduct established, the workman was entitled to seek for reinstatement with back wages. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Management would refer me to a Police complaint said to have been made wherein an expression of suspicion had been made against the workman that he could tamper with the electric connection with an oblique motive of causing injury to the person who had come in contact with the live wire. It must be pointed out that copy of the complaint itself was not produced before the Labour Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Management would refer me to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in 2009 LIC 3366 as supporting his case. It was a case where CWP No.6996 of 2009 3 the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with back wages but the High Court had reversed the decision but did not even award to the workman compensation. It was in the context of such reversal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in a case where there was violation of Section 25-F reinstatement shall not always be a remedy. The Court held that the workman should be adequately compensated. This statement was made in the context of a daily rated worker whose service, in the nature of things was fragile and after referring to a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Court held, that the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, ought to have awarded compensation. I am afraid that these decisions are of no help to the Management. It is not a case where there is a scope for disallowing the relief of reinstatement as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was again dealing with the services of a daily rated worker where depending on the availability of work, status of the workman and the number of years of service the Court could award merely compensation instead of the relief for reinstatement. It will be a wrong understanding of law in my view, if one must take the position of law to emerge that in every case where termination of service is ordered, it shall be sufficient to make an offer for payment of compensation. On the other hand, the issue must be approached from a point of view of restoring to workman what he was entitled and not deny to him the relief, unless other circumstances so warrant. A mere statement by the Management that it had lost confidence in the workman shall not enable them to trample upon the rights of workman and not to proceed in the way the law envisages. If the Management had lost confidence, it had perforce to follow the mandate of law before it ordered termination. An offer in the letter of termination that “he would receive full and final wages from Accounts Department” is meaningless, when there was not a definite offer of payment of CWP No.6996 of 2009 4 compensation as Section 25-F mandates. The decision of the Labour Court under the circumstances is perfectly justified. The writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 28, 2009 archana