LPA No. 1235 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1235 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 30.07.2010 The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents LPA No. 1321 of 2009 (O&M) State of Punjab and others -----Appellants Versus Rajinder Kumar ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s) Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The Management, namely, the Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (for short 'the Management') has filed two appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent being L.P.A. Nos. 1235 and 1321 of 2009 challenging the view of the learned Single Judge with regard to retrenched workman. The Letter Patent Appeal arising out from C.W.P. No. 11549 of 1992. The workman was appointed as Clerk on 3.11.1986, and re-appointed on 05.02.1987 and on 06.05.1987 for a LPA No. 1235 of 2009 (O&M) -2- period of 89 days on each occasion. His services were terminated on 24.06.1987 before completion of 240 days. The Labour Court found that the Management had deliberately terminated his services in order to circumvent his statutory right which accrues before completion of 240 days. The view of the Labour Court was that the work was available. Accordingly Labour Court concluded that the appellant-Management had committed unfair labour practice by circumventing the period of 240 days. Likewise, in L.P.A. No. 1235 of 2009 emerging from C.W.P. No. 2099 of 1993. The workman was appointed as Clerk for a term of 89 days on 18.09.1986, 16.12.1986 and 24.03.1987. His services were terminated on 20.06.1987. The Labour Court recorded categorical finding that the workman had completed 240 days. In both the cases, the plea of the Management that they were on contractual employment and were covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'), was rejected because their employment did not result into completion of any work and the contract of appointment for a specified period was not genuine. Upholding the finding of the Labour Court by the learned Single Judge that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act did not apply and the work was of perennial nature and the management had indulged in unfair labour practice. Therefore, the learned Single Judge also approved the view taken by the Labour Court that the workman could not be retrenched under Section 25-F of the Act. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside the order of reinstatement and held LPA No. 1235 of 2009 (O&M) -3- that workmen is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement within a specified period, failing which the amounts was to bear simple interest of 7.5% per annum. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants at a considerable length and are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference because Hon'ble the Supreme Court has now repeatedly held that there is no automatic reinstatement merely because provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has been violated and the workman should be compensated by a reasonable lump-sum amount. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment rendered in the case of M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, (2007) 9 SCC 748 and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (2009) 15 SCC 327. As a sequel to the above discussions, both the appeals fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 30, 2010 Atul