CWP No.19526 of 2008 and CWP No. 1465 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19526 of 2008 Date of decision July 16, 2009 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula through its Chief Administrator and another. ....... Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambala and another. ........ Respondents CWP No. 1465 of 2008 Sat Pal ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambala and others. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.19526 of 2008 and for the respondents in CWP No.1465 of 2009 Mr. Pritam Saini , Advocate for respondent No.2 in CWP No.19526 of 2008 and for the petitioner in CWP No. 1465 of 2009 **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers 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. 1. The two writ petitions challenge the same award passed by the Labour Court dated 4.3.2008, one at the instance of the Management namely Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula insofar as it directs payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/- to the CWP No.19526 of 2008 and CWP No. 1465 of 2009 2 workman and directs further the competent authority of the Labour Department to initiate appropriate civil, criminal and departmental action against the then Chief Administrator and the Executive Engineer- respondents before it, accord to law. Writ petition No. 1465 of 2009 has been filed at the instance of the workman insofar as it rejected the reference and disallowing claim for reinstatement and back wages. 2. The claim by the workman was that he was employed as a truck driver in the Marketing Division No.1, Pipli,- Kurukshetra on 23.3.2002 but he was illegally terminated on 10.5.2004. The Management filed written statement denying that the workman was ever employed by the Management. The Labour Court, however, referred to Ex. WW3/A which was a photocopy of charge handing report with respect to truck No. HR-68-0969 on which the petitioner was appointed as a driver. Reference to WW3/C, WW3/D, WW-3/4 yielded to proof that the workman had taken a vehicle for greasing/service etc. on various dates and the Labour Court also took note of Ex.WW1/1 when the driver was challaned for over speed in respect of truck in question. As a further proof that he had been employed by the Management Board another document which the Labour Court referred to was a log book that decisively answered controversy that the workman had been employed by the respondent. Having formidable proof of the engagement of the workman under respondent, the Labour Court was of the view that the respondent deliberately committed perjury and wanted strict action to be taken departmentally against the two officers arrayed as respondents. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management referred to 2007 SLR 48 to contend that the powers of the Contempt of Courts Act were not available to the Labour Court and therefore, it had no power to initiate action for any contempt that may have CWP No.19526 of 2008 and CWP No. 1465 of 2009 3 been committed. Learned counsel also referred to the decision in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Vs. Radhey Shyam (SC)2008 3 SCT 841, the reliance on these judgments according to me, is meaningless for the Labour Court that found the respondent guilty of perjury had not taken any action for contempt under Contempt of Courts Act. On the contrary, it was directing the higher authorities to proceed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who had committed perjury by appropriate departmental action. If there was any mistake in the direction, the mistake was the forum for taking action. False statements to mislead the Court in judicial proceedings is an offence described under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. The direction issued by the Labour Court is, therefore, substituted by a direction given to the Labour Court to institute appropriate complaint against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the manner provided by the relevant provisions in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code read with Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. As regards the finding relating to the prayer for reinstatement and compensation, it is contended that a daily rated worker was not entitled to regularization and public employment could not be made without there being a sanctioned post and the appointment done otherwise than through the process of inviting applications from the public and notifying through Employment Exchange would be violative of Article 14 and 16 and the Court in such a case, ought not to direct reinstatement. The Labour Court, however, did not apply even this proposition correctly but held the retrenchment was covered by the exception 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In Order that sub clause (bb) applies, it should be shown that the engagement was for a particular period with details of commencement and ending and in the absence of evidence the Mangement would have had to show that the workman had not completed CWP No.19526 of 2008 and CWP No. 1465 of 2009 4 240 days of work. It has to be seen that the Management had deliberately suppressed the best evidence available under the circumstances. On the available proof that the workman had been employed from 23.3.2002 to 10.5.2004, the termination of service without following the procedure described under Section 25-F was illegal. Since regularization of the services of the workman could not be made for the reasons stated above, the workman shall be declared entitled to compensation for two years and two months of which he was in employment of. The appropriate compensation in my view, would be Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the workman relied on Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar reported in 2008 (9) SCC 486 that the Supreme Court had directed two lacs to be paid. In a case where the Court found that the workman was entitled to reinstatement but it was not feasible due to the long pendency of the case lasting nearly 2 decades, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was awarding compensation of a larger sum in lieu of re-employment. The compensation awarded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court must be taken to be confined to the particular facts of the case and cannot be understood as laying down a proposition of law that compensation payable shall always be Rs.2 lacs. The award of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation, in my view, for a driver who had been engaged for about two years but was not entitled to reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. 5. The writ petition filed by the Management in CWP No. 19526 of 2008 is modified in the manner specified in para 3 and C.W.P.No. 1465 of 2009 is disposed of with directions as contained in para 4 of the judgment. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 16 , 2009 archana