CWP No.15066 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15066 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision 26.11.2009 Workman-Partap Singh ..... Petitioner V/s The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. Present: Mr.P.K.Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Paramjit Batta, Advocate for the respondents. *** K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The Award under challenge is rejection of reference sought by the workman who claimed that he had been terminated from service on 01.09.1988, although the termination was found in the award to be bad. Since the Management claimed that there was no post, the workman had been merely offered compensation. When it was reported that the Management had regularized a junior namely Rameshwar Dass in service as Peon, the workman had issued demand notice and sought for the reference that he was entitled to be re-employed under Section 25(H) and effective from the date when Rameshwar Dass was regularized in the post of Peon. 2. The contention of the Management was that Rameshwar Dass belonged to a different category of workman, namely, he was a Chowkidar and the petitioner could not treat himself at par with Rameshwar Dass and seek for re-employment. The Labour Court accepted the contention and rejected the reference. CWP No.15066 of 2006 (O&M) -2- 3. The workman had contended in the writ petition that the post of Peon and Chowkidars were in the same category and as per Primary Co- operative Credit & Services Societies Staff Services Rules, 1992. Peon and Chowkidar were referred to in the same category and the duties of Peons and Chowkidars were also treated as same. The contention, therefore, was that a Peon and Chowkidar in the service were synonymous and also kept in the same seniority list. Contending that the Management had misled the Labour Court into accepting that the posts were the dis-similar, the petitioner had referred to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court Hans Raj V/s Barara Cooperative Markating and Processing Society Ltd.,Barara in CWP No.11837 of 2003 where the petitioner Hans Raj had sought for consideration of re-employment under Section 25(H) on the basis that Rameshwar Dass had been appointed as Peon and regularized on 02.08.1983 and that he was entitled to be considered as such. The writ petition had been allowed and the workman Hans Raj was directed to be appointed against the post of Peon from the date when Rameshwar Dass was appointed and he was also held entitled to the backwages from the date of issuance of demand notice i.e. 02.01.1997. The Division Bench had decided on the same day yet another case against the same Management filed in CWP No.11834 of 2003 (Annexure-P6) wherein writ petitioner Gulab Singh had claimed that another person by name Pardeep Kumar who had been appointed as Clerk subsequently was being retained and staked his claim for re-employment on the application of the principle laid down under Section 25(H). The Petitioner Gulab Singh belonged to a different category of workman as Clerk and he sought parity with Pardep Kumar, who was CWP No.15066 of 2006 (O&M) -3- also a Clerk. The Division Bench, while deciding Hans Raj's case, applied the principle in Gulab Singh's case and granted the relief to the workman. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Management would contend that the copy of the Resolution which has been filed in the Court purporting to be Resolution appointing Rameshwar Dass as Peon is wrongly made since the original which was in Hindi refers to Rameshward Dass only as a Chowkidar. 5. I have heard the counsel and caused to the copy of the Resolution in the vernacular to be read out. The expression used appears to be only a Chowkidar. However, in my opinion, it will not make any difference since this Division Bench has already considered the case of Hans Raj observing that Rameshwar Dass was appointed on regular basis as a Peon and a decision which was made on 23.08.2004, appears to have also become final. It is not urged before me by the Management that judgment was in any way modified or assailed before any higher Forum. I am also convinced that if the Rules provided for the treatment of Chowkidar and Peon as belonging to the same category and the duties are also same, the appointment of a person who is brought in later, such as Rameshwar Dass to the post of Chowkidar, will entitle the workman to stake his case for re-employment from the same day when Rameshwar Dass was regularized and he shall retain a seniority above Rameshwar Dass. 6. Under circumstances, the Award of the Labour Court is set aside and the petitioner shall be appointed against the post of Peon w.e.f. the date when Rameshwar Dass was appointed and he shall also be entitled for the backwages in the same manner as provided by the Division Bench in CWP CWP No.15066 of 2006 (O&M) -4- No.11837 of 2003 viz., backwages from the date of issuance of demand notice under Section 2(A) which was on 20.01.1997 (Annexure P-1). 7. The writ petition is allowed with the cost assessed at Rs.5,000/- in favour of the workman against the Management. 26.11.2009 (K.KANNAN) shamsher JUDGE