CWP No. 10345 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10345 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.04.2010 Jang Bahadur c/o sh. Ramji Dass Sharma ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Bajaj Enterprises G.T.road, Shahpura, Batala and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner has been granted the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- although his termination has been found to be in violation of the provisions of the contract entered into between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service in the light of the fact that the contract has been breached by respondent No. 1. He contends that a contract CWP No. 10345 of 2009 2 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 07.12.1995 for a period of 8 years w.e.f. 08.12.1995, wherein the petitioner was appointed as a semi-skilled Labourer. He contends that the petitioner joined on 08.12.1995 as per the terms of contract. The contract was to expire on 07.12.2003 but his services were illegally terminated by respondent No. 1-Management on 01.07.2002 without complying with the terms and conditions of the contract, according to which, in case the petitioner absented himself from duty for more than 10 days without any information, a charge-sheet was required to be issued to be followed by a departmental enquiry and an order of termination could be passed only if the said charge was duly proved against the petitioner. He contends that the stand of the Management before the Labour Court was that the workman had abandoned his services and, therefore, he contends that the workman had absented from duty, which mandated the issuance of a charge-sheet and holding of an enquiry, which admittedly has not been done by the Management. The Labour Court, on the consideration of the submissions made by the parties and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, has not accepted the stand of the Management that the workman had abandoned his services. As a matter of fact, it has been found that the termination of the workman from service was in violation of the terms of contract and thus, it has been held that the termination was not in accordance with law. He contends that instead of reinstating the workman-petitioner for breach of contract, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- has been granted to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service and, therefore, the Award deserves to be modified to that extent. CWP No. 10345 of 2009 3 On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the Management has placed on record various communications before the Labour Court which clearly shows that the workman, after absenting himself from duty, was called upon to join duty through various communications but he failed to report and, therefore, the Management had no option but to conclude that he had abandoned the job. He contends that as a matter of fact, the services of the workman were not terminated by the Management but the workman had himself abandoned the services. The petitioner was thus not entitled to any benefit what to say of reinstatement in service. He, on this basis, contends that no interference is called for in the Award passed by the Labour Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The execution of a contract and the continuation of the same between the parties, when the alleged termination of the petitioner- workman came into existence, is not in dispute. As per the stand of the petitioner, his services were terminated on 01.07.2002. The demand notice was served by the petitioner on 05.07.2002 i.e. within just four days of the termination of the services of the workman. This itself shows that the workman was always willing and ready to work with the Management. Further, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has not believed the stand of the Management and has held that the plea of the Management with regard to the abandonment of the job by the workman is not sustainable as they have not been able to prove by adducing admissible evidence that the workman had indeed, despite various communications, not joined his duties. It can thus be said that the termination of the services of the workman was not in consonance with the CWP No. 10345 of 2009 4 contract entered into between the parties but in violation thereof. Since the terms of contract of appointment of the workman have been violated by the Management, the petitioner although would not be entitled to reinstatement in service as the period of contract expired on 07.12.2003 but he would be entitled to the wages for the contract period which was still pending on the date of his termination and compensation for the breach of contract by respondent No. 1-Management. It has come on record that the last wages drawn by the workman were Rs. 2,400/- per month. Keeping that in view, the remaining period of contract was 17 months i.e. from 01.07.2002 to 07.12.2003, the amount thus comes to Rs. 40,800/-. For the breach of contract on the part of the Management, the workman is held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,200/- . Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a total amount of Rs. 45,000/- from respondent No. 1-Management . Consequently the petition is allowed and the Award dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, is modified to the extent that the petitioner/workman is entitled to Rs. 45,000/- from respondent No. 1/Management on account of wages and compensation. At this stage, counsel for respondent No. 1-Management states that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the Labour Court, stands paid to the petitioner. In case, the said submission is correct, respondent No. 1- Management is directed to release the remaining amount within a period of three months' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 30, 2010 pj