IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2153 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision:29.11.2011 M/s Alcozin India Pvt. Ltd., through Shri S.K. Joshi, its Manager. ...Petitioner versus The State of Haryana, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.17898 of 1991 (O&M) M/s Alcozin India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.16, Sector 4, Faridabad- 121004, through its Manager. ...Petitioner versus S.S.Nagar son of Shri Ami Chand Nagar, resident of Village & Post office Tigaon, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.2153 of 1988. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.17898 of 1991. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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. ---- Civil Writ Petition No.2153 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Civil Writ Petition No.2153 of 1988 1. The writ petition challenges the order of reinstatement made through an award of the Labour Court, Faridabad. The workman sought a reference for termination made on 24.05.1983. Along with the termination order, there was also a bank draft for Rs.1,681/- being the amount payable as retrenchment compensation, but he refused to accept the same. The justification for the Management was that due to shortage of work and availability of only two milling machines in the factory, the services of the workman was required to be terminated and, therefore, a seniority list was drawn and published after communication to the Labour Department. The petitioner himself had not made any objection and only when the order of termination was passed against the petitioner, who was the lowest in the order of seniority, the workman protested and sought for on a reference to a Labour Court. It appears that on several occasions commencing from 18.11.1983 to 09.04.1984, the references have been denied but when ultimately the reference was made to the Labour Court, the Court held that it was a sheer case of victimization. The Labour Court did not go into the question of whether the termination was in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but it went on to examine the past history of how the workman was previously terminated and reinstated on 01.05.1982 pursuant to a settlement after a reference to the Labour Civil Writ Petition No.2153 of 1988 (O&M) - 3 - Court. The Labour Court reasoned that this settlement was deliberately scuttled by a fresh order of termination. 2. I find the whole approach of the Labour Court as improper. If a retrenchment was made on the basis of the assessment of labour requirements and the person that came last had to go first, the order could have been interfered only if it was a case of unfair labour practice made by the Management to deliberately flout the settlement lawfully entered into between the Management and the workman. The Labour Court has assumed that it was a case of victimization and had engaged in lofty rhetoric of how it was necessary to strengthen the arms of the workman against a mighty management. The issue simply was whether the termination conformed to law. Against the evidence of the Management that the seniority list had been prepared and retrenchment notice had been given and pasted on the notice board, the workman had merely stated that he was not aware whether a seniority list exhibited as M- 2 had been placed on the notice board. He, however, admitted that there was an endorsement at N-3 in his hand that attested the fact of the publication of the seniority list. He was trying to get away from the effect of his signature by saying that he did not know what it contained and that he had not received any amount since his account was not correctly settled. The settlement that allows for a reinstatement does not at all times guarantee against the retrenchment at all. I will find, if there is a retrenchment in Civil Writ Petition No.2153 of 1988 (O&M) - 4 - accordance with the procedure established in law, there is no scope for the Court to equalize an earlier order of reinstatement as constituting a security of tenure in a private establishment. Such a concept does not still simply exist. 3. The order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. II. Civil Writ Petition No.17898 of 1991 4. The impugned order relates to certain additional benefits which the workman claimed in view of the increase in minimum wages in terms of the Government notification. The amounts calculated during a specified period came to be deposited in this Court to await the outcome of adjudication in the connected writ petition already discussed above. Although I have allowed the writ petition filed by the Management, I will still not deny what the workman would have obtained by virtue of the interim order that the Court had given for payment of the benefits of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The amount which stands credited to the above case shall be ordered to be released to the workman on his application. 5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 29.11.2011 sanjeev