IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8542 of 2000. Date of Decision : January 28, 2010. Swaran Singh ...... Petitioner. Versus. Labour Court, Bhatinda through its Presiding Officer, Bhatinda, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the award dated 16.02.2000 (Annexure-P-7), vide which the reference made by the appropriate Government on a demand raised by the petitioner/workman, has been answered against the petitioner/workman. Counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that the petitioner/workman was appointed initially as a Water Carrier and thereafter, as a Chowkidar on 03.01.1989. He continued as such till 28.09.1989, when his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short “the Act”). On a dispute having been raised by the petitioner/workman, the matter was referred to the learned Labour Court, who vide its award dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure-P-1), directed the Management to re-instate the petitioner/workman as a Chowkidar with continuity of service, but without back wages till 10.12.1993 as the workman abandoned the claim in this regard. In compliance with the award passed by C.W.P. No. 8542 of 2000. -2- the learned Labour Court, the petitioner/workman was reinstated by the respondent/Management, vide its order dated 25.04.1994 (Annexure-P-2). Thereafter, a notice dated 05.05.1994 was served upon the petitioner/workman calling upon him to reply to the notice, if he had any objection to his retrenchment from the post of Chowkidar, due to non availability of daily wage post of a Chowkidar. The petitioner/workman filed a reply to the said notice. As no decision was taken on the said notice, the petitioner/workman filed C.W.P. No. 7156 of 1994, which came up for hearing on 05.05.1995, when the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the objections filed by the petitioner/workman to the retrenchment notice within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It was further ordered that till the objections are decided, the services of the petitioner/workman be not terminated. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner/workman and on hearing him personally, the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, ordered the retrenchment of the petitioner/workman. The retrenchment compensation was paid to him, which was received by him. A dispute was raised by the petitioner/workman and he served a demand notice upon the respondent/Management. The matter was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. On consideration of the respective contentions as raised by the parties, the award dated 16.02.2000 (Annexure-P- 7) had been passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, which is under challenge in the present case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award dated 16.02.2000 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained for the reason that persons junior to the petitioner/workman had been retained in service by the respondent/Management. The provisions of C.W.P. No. 8542 of 2000. -3- Section 25-H of the Act having not been complied with, the petitioner/workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. He makes a specific reference to the case of one Smt. Neelam Rani, who was a daily wager and was appointed after the petitioner/workman. He states that she had been retained in service, whereas the petitioner's services had been terminated. Similarly, one Shri Joginder Singh was appointed after the termination of services of the petitioner/workman and, therefore, he should have a preferential right to the appointment over the junior persons, but he had not been given an opportunity and the name of the petitioner/workman was not considered. Similarly, Shri Onkar Nath, Ved Parkash, Parhalad Kumar, Baldev Singh, and Dharam Kumar had been appointed by respondent/Management, but the case of the petitioner/workman was not considered for appointment. He on this basis submits that the award dated 16.02.2000 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the learned Labour Court cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Management submits that the petitioner/workman was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis. None of the persons, referred to above, who are alleged to be junior to the petitioner/workman, belong to the category of Chowkidar. Smt. Neelam Rani, daily wager, was appointed as a Ticket Verifier and was allowed to continue as such on that post. As regards Joginder Singh, it has been specifically stated in the written statement by respondent/Management that he was appointed on regular basis and was a diploma holder from I.T.I., which is the requirement for the post of Helper in the workshop. With regard to Onkar Nath and Ved Parkash, it is submitted that they were both appointed as Mechanics, Parhalad Kumar was appointed as a Carpenter, Baldev Singh was appointed as a Tyreman, and Dharam Kumar was appointed as a Blacksmith. C.W.P. No. 8542 of 2000. -4- Thus, none of the persons, who are alleged to be junior to the petitioner/workman or had been appointed after his termination of services, belong to the category of Chowkidar and, therefore, the petitioner/workman had no right to claim appointment or to allege that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act were violated by respondent/Management. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that the petitioner/workman had been discriminated by respondent/Management as Neelam Rani, who was appointed as a Ticket Verifier and there being no post available for her, had been adjusted against a vacant post of D.P.A. He submits that the petitioner/workman should also have been adjusted against any other post, which would be available with respondent/Management. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The claim of the petitioner/workman primarily is based on the fact that persons junior to him had been retained in service. If we go by the length of service, the assertion as made by counsel for the petitioner/workman could be correct, but the petitioner/workman cannot claim preferential right or right on a post other than Chowkidar. If, some persons junior were retained or appointed or freshly appointed on different posts and in different categories, to which the petitioner/workman belongs, it cannot be said that the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act have been violated. Nothing has been brought on record that any person belonging to the category of Chowkidar, who was junior to the petitioner/workman, had been retained in service or had been freshly appointed after the termination of services of the petitioner/workman. That being so, the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner/workman cannot be accepted. C.W.P. No. 8542 of 2000. -5- As regards the claim of the petitioner/workman that he should have also been adjusted against any vacant post as is the case of Neelam Rani, it goes without saying that it is the discretion of the Management and they are in a better position and best judge to understand and evaluate as to which assignment is to be given to which person. This adjustment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This contention of counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 28, 2010. sjks.