LPA No. 179 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 179 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.12.2012 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and another ……… Appellants Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another ………… Respondents ***** CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest. RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against a common order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions bearing Nos. 19526 of 2008 and 1465 of 2009. 2. The learned Single Judge has granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman-respondent in lieu of reinstatement. It is beyond cavil that the workman-respondent had been engaged by the management i.e. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, as a truck driver in the Marketing Division No. 1, Pipli-Kurukshetra on 23.03.2002 and his services were brought to an end on 10.05.2004. The management before the Labour Court outrightly denied that the workman was employed by LPA No. 179 of 2011 -2- them but that defence was repelled by the Labour Court on the strength of evidence in the shape of Ex. WW3/A which was a photo copy of the charge handing report with respect to the truck, for which the workman was appointed as its driver. There was further evidence that the workman had been taking the vehicle for servicing on various dates to the workshop on behalf of the management and the driver had also been challaned for over speeding while driving that truck. By a lengthy award in Reference No. 231 of 2006, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala declined reinstatement and went on to impose special cost of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of the workman and against the respondents, the Chief Administrator and Executive Officer of the Board for abusing the process of law and held them liable to prosecution for giving false evidence in Court. 3. It has been found as a fact that the workman had been employed from 23.3.2002 to 10.5.2004 and the termination of service was occasioned without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The findings of the Labour Court in the present case fell in exception Sub clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act have been correctly faulted by the learned Single Judge. However, the reason given for denying reinstatement is that the workman was not appointed on regular basis after complying with the mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, and would not entitle him to reinstatement. Reliance was placed on a catena of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court to hold that the respondent-workman would not be entitled to reinstatement. The learned Single Judge, therefore, upheld the award to the extent of denial of reinstatement but modified the award into lump sum payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The reason for awarding Rs. 25,000/- appears to flow from the fact that the total length of service put in by the workman with the Board was only about two years. LPA No. 179 of 2011 -3- We do not find any error in exercise of jurisdiction to mould the relief to suit the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, uphold that exercise of judicial discretion. We also find that in the connected petition filed by the Board against the findings of the learned Labour Court of the deplorable conduct of the Board in withholding evidence and imposing special costs of Rs. 3,000/- against the officials for abusing the process of law for producing false evidence and false documents in Court is unexceptionable. The learned Single Judge has correctly explained that the directions of the Labour Court were not in the realm of the Contempt of Courts Act, and further clarified the matter by substituting the directions of the Labour Court to one of directions to institute appropriate proceedings against respondents No.1 & 2 in the manner provided in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code read with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the assertion of the Board in its petition that the learned Labour Court had initiated action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was misplaced. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and after examining the record placed before us, we find no merit in both the appeals sufficient to admit them. The appeals, consequently fail and are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE JUDGE 07.12.2012 ‘sp’