C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 Date of Decision: 20.07.2009 Jameel S/o Sh. Saliya Ram, V.P.O., Kheri Man Singh, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The award in challenge is rejection of a reference sought by the workman that his services were terminated illegally. The admitted case was that the workman had served in PWD (B&R), Sub Division, Karnal as Beldar on muster roll basis from 03.09.1993 to 11.08.1994 and when his services were terminated, there was a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the workmen and the Executive Engineer, PWD, which reduced the terms of settlement as follows:- "It has been agreed between both the parties that the management shall take back the workmen on job with C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 -2- previous service but they shall not be paid any wages on the basis of no pay no work. The workmen shall be taken on duty w.e.f. 01.09.1995." 2. He was again engaged from 01.09.1995 to February, 1996 and his services were terminated when he was ceased to be engaged. The construction put upon settlement by the workman was that the expression that he should be taken back on job with "previous service" should mean continuity in service and if he must be treated as being in continuous service during the period when he was not working, he should qualify as having worked without a break from 03.09.1993 till the date when he was terminated, for more than 240 days and therefore, there had been a violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He refers to the statement of MW-1, A.N. Chauhan, who had admitted that the workman was taken in service with continuity of service but without back wages. Later on a re-examination, he resiled from such statement but the Labour Court gave no importance to what he had originally stated in the cross- examination in view of the fact that the settlement was reduced to writing and therefore, whatever expression that the witness had used could not outweigh the actual recitals. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Sh. Nalwa states that an employment in PWD on a daily-rated basis for specific projects undertaken at various times cannot enure beyond the project and the workman would not be entitled to treat his services as regular. He would also urge that the settlement terms that had been reduced to writing must be understood in its plain meaning and cannot be C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 -3- supplied with the meanings that it does not possess. According to him, the words 'previous service' cannot be understood as continuous service and if that was the intention nothing prevented the same expression from being used by the parties. He would urge that previous service must be understood as merely a service that he had rendered from 03.09.1993 to 11.08.1994 for whatever reference that it was worth to be used at a later point of time, if any policy considerations could give any weightage for the same. The limited construction which the learned counsel for the respondent places on this, I am not able to accept. 4. If it must be noticed that after he was terminated from service in August, 1994 , if the respondents were merely making reference to the period of his employment from 03.09.1993 to 11.08.1994, there was indeed no benefit to either party for after all, it was a matter on record. The reference must have been only because the settlement assured to the workmen a resumption of employment from 01.09.1995 and the parties decided that it should be treated as continuous. I am aware, I am feeding an expression which is not available in settlement but without giving such a meaning the settlement itself becomes meaningless. It should have been even sufficient to give him employment for the continuation of project without any reference to previous service, if it was not meant to be a continuous service. By the construction which I have made to the settlement, it becomes obvious that there had been a non-compliance of the requirement under Section 25-F. 5. Having said it, it still has to be seen if by the termination of C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 -4- service that became invalid for such a non-compliance, the workman should be entitled to reinstatement. Learned counsel appearing for the workman fervently argues that in the absence of any material to show that the engagement was either illegal or a backdoor entry, the relief of reinstatement ought not to be refused. I cannot accede to such a prayer only by the fact that the definite evidence by the management was with reference to a copy of the letter No.5/6/92-IB&C dated 09.01.1996 (Ex.M1) through which the Financial Commissioner had given directions that in future no appointment on daily wages would be made. Policy considerations relating to financial outlay or the nature of engagement that a public department undertakes shall be essentially matters that are left to the agencies of Government for which a judicial reference is seldom the ideal approach. The problem may probably be settled by the relative strength of labour and the management in a process of collective bargaining that government and its agencies simply do not engage labour on daily basis, except in rare instances and regular work in an establishment is never secured without engagement of permanent labourers. Judicial conscience is dictated by the judicial pronouncements and the well laid out tools of interpretation of law. The workman has been in employment from 03.09.1993 to 26.02.1996 and by the construction that I have made that the settlement related to continuity of service, the fact that the case is pending since 1998 with a workman holding a reasonable beleif that he is entitled to reinstatement having worked initially in PWD (B&R) in two distinct terms and having secured favourable terms after a compromise, interest of justice, in my view, would be C.W.P No.7110 of 1998 -5- best served if the workman is awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of the notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that it shall provide now for a compensation in the manner indicated above, which shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which it shall bear simple interest @ 7.5% per annum. No costs. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 20, 2009 Pankaj*