Civil Writ Petition No. 14003 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 14003 of 2006 Date of Decision: 28.4.2008 Executive Engineer, PWD P.H. Division, Sohna and Others. …Petitioners Versus Krishan Kumar and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed by Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Health Division, Sohna, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Health Circle, Gurgaon, and Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department, Public Health Branch, Chandigarh, and they have sought the quashing of award dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, in favour of respondent No.1-workman, whereby he has been held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the ground that the violation of Section Civil Writ Petition No. 14003 of 2006 2 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) has occurred because retrenchment compensation was not paid at the appropriate time i.e. time of retrenchment. Respondent No.1-workman stated in Claim Statement (Annexure P5) that he was appointed as Mali- cum-Chowkidar on 1.7.1995 and his services were terminated on 28.8.1997 and at that time he was getting Rs.1,548/- per month. In written statement filed to the Claim Statement (Annexure P6), the petitioner-Management stated that the workman was appointed purely on temporary basis i.e. on daily wages w.e.f. 1.7.1995 to 30.6.1997 and muster rolls from 1.7.1997 to 28.8.1997 were not traced in the office. It was further stated that the compensation due to the petitioner under Section 25-F of the Act was sent by a bank draft dated 27.8.1997 and no junior workmen to respondent No.1-workman has been retained in the division. Learned Labour Court held that “it has come into evidence that ultimately retrenchment notice and compensation were sent to the petitioner through registered post. Postal receipt has been placed on record but the date put therein is not readable. In the face of denial of the petitioner to receive the retrenchment compensation along with retrenchment of the petitioner. As such there was clear violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act which says that retrenchment compensation is to be paid along with retrenchment”. Furthermore, Labour Court held that there is no violation of Section 25-G of the Act as the case of the Management is that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the basis of “last come first go” rule and same has not been controverted by the workman. However, Civil Writ Petition No. 14003 of 2006 3 learned Labour Court held that since there is technical violation of Section 25-F of the Act, so the workman is entitled to compensation and awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The Management has relied upon Hoshiarpur Central Co-operative Bank Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others 2005(1) Recent Service Judgments 222 a judgment of this Court (Annexure P7), which was delivered by one of us (Ashutosh Mohunta, J.) to contend that delay in settlement of compensation cannot be considered as violation of Section 25-F of the Act. However, reliance has also been placed on Pramod Jha and Others v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1872 (Annexure P8). In this case draft was prepared a day before the retrenchment notice was served. Therefore, it is urged that there is no violation of Section 25-F of the Act, and workman is not entitled to compensation as awarded by the Labour Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the case of the workman, in Claim Statement (Annexure P5) his services were terminated on 28.8.1997 and in the written statement to the Claim Statement (Annexure P6) it has been pleaded as under:- “That the compensation 15 days per year along with advance pay of one month (in lieu of one month notice) has been paid to the workman i.e. Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh through Bank Draft No. 362923/110002190 dated 27.8.97 amounting to Rs.3097/- as retrenchment Civil Writ Petition No. 14003 of 2006 4 compensation as required under Clause-25 of I.D. Act”. Since bank draft had been prepared a day before the retrenchment, we are of the view that even no technical violation has taken place. It is further case of Management that ultimately retrenchment notice and compensation was sent to the workman by registered post. Merely because it cannot be deciphered from the postal receipt on which date same was despatched, there is no technical violation of Section 25-F. Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned award dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure P1) whereby compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the workman- respondent No.1. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 28, 2008 “DK”