CWP No. 11982 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11982 of 2002 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 The Secretary, Education, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS Hukam Chand son of Tahla Ram and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioners. Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 05.04.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No. 1-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and 50% back wages only as the petitioner did not CWP No. 11982 of 2002 2 comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act while terminating the services of the workman. Counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 had already preferred CWP No. 5986 of 1995 titled as Sarbag Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab and others, wherein respondent No. 1 was one of the petitioners praying for a direction to the Government of Punjab to absorb them in the grade and employment and regularize their services as employees with continuity of service. The said writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.08.1996 holding therein the petitioners entitled to salary for the period 18.03.1994 to 25.12.1995. She submits that in the light of the order passed by this Court and the earlier writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1-workman, the Award passed by the Labour Court would be hit by the principle of resjudicata and, therefore, the Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 1 and others was only to the limited extent of claiming regularization and absorption in the grade on the posts, on which they were working earlier before the taking over of the college by the Government i.e. 18.03.1994. The question of termination was not before this Court nor was there any adjudication on that aspect by this Court, therefore, the principle of resjudicata would not be applicable to the case of the workman. Her further submission is that on taking over of the college by the Government of Punjab w.e.f. 18.03.1994 although the service of the workman was not absorbed in the Punjab Government service yet he continued to work as such till the date of his termination i.e. 27.08.1996. During this period, it is an admitted position that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from CWP No. 11982 of 2002 3 the date of his termination of his service. It has been admitted in the cross- examination before the Labour Court by the Management witness MW-1 Puran Singh himself that no compensation was paid to the workman nor any enquiry was held when the service of the workman was terminated. The Management witness has also admitted during the cross-examination that the workman had been working with the Management for the last 7-8 years prior to the taking over of the college by the Government. Even after the date of taking over of the college by the Government, the workman continued to work with the Management and the salary for the period 18.03.1994 to 25.12.1995 was paid to him in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 5986 of 1995. She, on this basis, contends that the provisions, as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, having not been complied with by the Management, the termination of the service of the workman was not in accordance with law and, therefore, the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with continuity of service and 50% back wages is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 5986 of 1995 titled as Sarbag Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab and others dated 26.08.1996 (Annexure P-1) leaves no manner of doubt that the prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to the Government to absorb the petitioners (respondent No. 1 herein) in the grade and employment and regularize their services as employees with continuity of service from the date of taking over of the college. CWP No. 11982 of 2002 4 It is an admitted position that the workman was appointed as a Peon and had been working with the Management for the last 7-8 years earlier to the date of absorption as admitted by the Management witness himself referred to above. The question with regard to the termination of the service of the workman was not in question before this Court in CWP No. 5986 of 1995 preferred by respondent No. 1 along with others. The issue before the Labour Court was with regard to the termination of the service of the workman-respondent No. 1. That being so, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the workman would be barred by the principle of resjudicata cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. A perusal of the Award shows that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of termination of his service. No compensation was paid to the workman nor any enquiry was held when his service was terminated. The provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act thus were violated by the petitioners while terminating the service of the workman. That being so, the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. No illegality or irregularity has been found or has been pointed out which would persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the Court below in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this case. It would not be out of way to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman-respondent No. 1 had expired on 16.09.2003 and, therefore, the reinstatement of the workman cannot, at this stage, be granted. The legal representatives of the workman were CWP No. 11982 of 2002 5 brought on record vide order dated 02.08.2004. Since no reinstatement can be granted, the legal representatives of the workman-respondent No. 1 are held entitled to all the claims to which the workman would have been entitled to from the date of his termination as a consequence of the Award passed by the Labour Court till the date of his death. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 04, 2010 pj