IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7209 of 2000 Date of decision: 24.08.2009 State of Haryana and another …Petitioners versus Naresh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 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 directing reinstatement, back wages and continuity of service to the workman, who complained that he had been terminated on 01.08.1995 without following the mandate of Section 25-F, although he had completed 240 days of continuous service. The Labour Court dealt with the issue, responding to the objection taken by the management that the workman had not worked for 240 days and he had worked from 01.12.1993 upto 25.04.1994 and subsequently his services were not retained by the same establishment but he had been offered a fresh employment under the Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rohtak. It was also their contention that the engagement itself was for a particular purpose namely to work as a Chowkidar when construction of Panchayat Bhawan had been in progress and as soon as the work was done, his services were no longer required. Civil Writ Petition No.7209 of 2000 - 2 - 2. The Labour Court rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the management and put out against the management a case of another person Sanjeev Kumar, who had been engaged in the office of the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Rohtak and while similar service had been granted to another workman, it shall not be permissible for the management to apply a different yardstick and jettison only this particular workman. The Labour Court had also reasoned that even after the completion of the project, there had to be Chowkidars for the various Bhawans that had been established and therefore, the nature of engagement could not be taken as merely appertaining to a particular project of construction and directed reinstatement. 3. Initially the writ petition filed by the management had been dismissed in limine at the stage of admission but later in a civil appeal filed by the management, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed on 01.06.2000 vide judgment dated 19.03.2001 and directed fresh consideration of the case on merits. After the case was remanded and the case had been admitted by this Court on 30.07.2001. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the management that the Labour Court had been in error in likening the instance of engagement of Sanjeev Kumar as having any relevance for continuing the services of the workman. According to the learned counsel, the said Sanjeev Kumar was working in Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (MITC). He was a permanent employee and when he was rendered surplus as per the policy of the Government, he was redeployed in the office of the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj, Rohtak. A redeployment arising Civil Writ Petition No.7209 of 2000 - 3 - out of policy considerations for regular employee according to the learned counsel for the petitioner shall not be extended also to daily rated workers, who had been engaged only for certain projects. In my view, the contention merits acceptance and the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court was clearly erroneous. A right that accrues to a permanent employee cannot in any way be an example for a daily rated worker and the consideration of the Labour Court on this aspect is clearly faulty. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that admittedly the workman had been working under the Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rohtak, from 25.04.1995 to 31.07.1995 and the period of his engagement under a different officer although had came under the same establishment, cannot be treated to be continuous service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Limited Versus Sanjay-2009(3) SCT 614, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a workman, who had been employed on a contractual basis in HAFED, Jind was later engaged afresh in HAFED, Hissar. Admittedly, if the engagement in any one of the establishments alone were to be reckoned, the workman would not have in that case completed 240 days. It was by computing the days of work in the respective establishments that workman could claim that he had completed 240 days of continuous service. It was urged on behalf of the workman that HAFED, Jind and HAFED, Hissar were controlled by the Managing Director, HAFED and they could not be treated as separate establishments for the purpose of Section 25-F. This contention was Civil Writ Petition No.7209 of 2000 - 4 - rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that the workman had been engaged independently by the District Managers of Jind and Hissar at various times and therefore, it was not possible to treat both the establishments as constituting continuity in employment. This decision, in my view, does not really answer a situation that has obtained in this case. The workman had been first employed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Rohtak and it was he, who again after the completion of the work directed the employment of the workman in the office of the Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rohtak. No independent order of the Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, Rohtak, directing the employment was put on record. If the same officer, who originally engaged the services of the workman could also direct the employment of the same workman in another office, he should only be, in my view, taken as in continuance employment. The situation that obtained while the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with specifically dealt with two distinct establishments by two independent orders from the respective managers of the industrial establishments. I, therefore, hold that the workman's services must be computed as having been continuous from 01.12.1993 to 01.08.1995. 5. If the workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was ultimately made, the relief of reinstatement should be considered in the context of the nature of engagement, the period of his engagement, the availability of the work for which the workman had been employed, etc. In this case, it was admitted that he was employed during the continuance of the work of construction and the work had Civil Writ Petition No.7209 of 2000 - 5 - completed long time back, that is, as early as in April, 1995. A fresh engagement that took place before the Vice Chairman, Zila Parishad, again was on temporary basis and there is nothing on record to suggest that there is any continuous work available as a Chowkidar. Having regard to the special circumstances that exists in this case, I am of the view that reinstatement will not be the appropriate remedy and the workman shall only be entitled to the relief of compensation. Having regard to the fact that the workman had put in about 20 months of service, I am of the view that Rs.25,000/- would be adequate compensation for non-compliance of the requirements of Section 25-F. 6. The award of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is set aside and instead of the relief of reinstatement the workman shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be paid to him within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount shall be loaded with a simple interest of 7.5% per annum. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 24.08.2009 sanjeev