Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 Date of Decision:10.11.2008 The Punjab State through District Forest Officer, Patiala Forest Division Bara Dari, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. Jaspal Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the Punjab State under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award Annexure P.1 dated 3.2.1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent- Jaspal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') was engaged as a casual labourer on daily wages. He was being paid for the days, he attended the work as per Muster Roll. When he was found negligent in his duties of tractor driver, his services were terminated on 21.2.1984. The workman raised the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala. The following issues were framed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala:- 1. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 -2- 2. Relief. After hearing the representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner has filed this petition. None has come forward to argue the case on behalf of the respondent- workman. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, besides perusing the findings returned by the Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State argued that the workman being a daily wager was not governed by any service rule and that being so, he was disentitled to any extra benefit and sequelly, neither one month notice was required to be served upon him before relieving him from duty, nor compensation under Section 25-F of the Act was to be given to him and thus the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court are apparently perverse. He has sought to place abundant reliance upon the observations made in re: M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. S.C. Pandey, (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 716 and Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 81. He further argued that merely because the workman had allegedly completed 240 days of work would not mean that he should be reinstated in view of the observations rendered in re: Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another, 2008(2) Services Law Reporter 12. . Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 -3- I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the contentions. As has been reflected in the impugned award, Mr. D.K. Aggarwal MW-I, Forest Range Officer admitted that the workman worked with the Department for about two years, though according to the workman, he had put in three years' continuous service. The Department did not produce record. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Anandh Kumar, I.F.S., Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala has placed an affidavit on the record. It has been solemnly affirmed in this affidavit that the respondent has joined the duty and is working regulary since 2005 to date and an amount of Rs.2,41,022/- has been paid to the workman vide the demand draft No.654907 dated 30.3.2005 on account of back-wages. To my mind, in the face of this affidavit, the impugned award in fact has been implemented in its letter and spirit. In re: S.C. Pandey (supra) before the Labour Court, the appellant, i.e., M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. inter-alia had raised a contention that the respondent (referring to S.C. Pandey) had been illegally appointed by the then Branch Manager and thus, he derived no real right to continue in service. It was categorically stated that the employees of the said undertaking are governed by the rules and regulations framed by the Corporation known as the Service Recruitment Selections Regulations, 1976 in terms whereof only the Managing Director was designated as the appointing authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that the workman was illegally appointed. Thus, the facts of S.C. Pandey's case are distinguishable from the one in hand. In re: Raj Kumar (supra), the respondent (referring to Raj Kumar) was appointed as a Clerk on contract basis on a monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. In Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 -4- the offer of appointment, it was specifically averred that “his services will be availed till it is considered as fit and proper and necessary. After that, his services will be dispensed with.” Thus the facts of Raj Kumar's case (supra) are also poles apart from the one in hand. In re: Mahboob Deepak (supra), the appellant (referring to Mahboob Deepak) was appointed as daily wager on a remuneration of Rs.20/- per day but was involved in financial irregularities and sequelly, his services were terminated. So, the facts of this case are also distinguishable. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, Mr. D.K. Aggarwal (sic) admitted that the workman worked with the respondent for about two years and no notice was given to him nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him before terminating the services. He further admitted that one person was employed in place of the workman on daily basis after the termination of services of the workman. As alleged by the petitioner, the workman was on Muster Rolls. His name was struck off, from the Rolls. By now, it is well settled that striking off name of the workman from the Rolls amounts to retrenchment. If so, the management is liable to pay compensation u/S 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Admittedly, the same has not been paid nor any notice before termination of service was served. Someone else has been employed in place of workman. The facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the one's relied upon by Mr. Chaudhary on the ground that indeed the award has been implemented and the workman has been working regularly since 2005. It would be doing injustice to the workman, at this juncture, if it is held that his reinstatement is invalid. Earlier, he has put in more than two years' service. After his reinstatement, he has rendered regular service beyond three years. It would Civil Writ Petition No.1691 of 1988 -5- be a travesty of justice if he is shunted out of service again. However, it is made clear that his reinstatement would not carry the tag of regularisation of his services. He will continue in service till regular substitute recommended by the State Selection Board, if any, is provided or his services are terminated in due course of law. Disposed of accordingly. November 10, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE