LPA No.1288 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1288 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 20, 2009 Bhagwan Singh ...Appellant Versus Punjab State Coop. Bank Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent- Management setting aside award of reinstatement with 50% backwages in favour of the appellant. 2. The appellant was appointed as Clerk on temporary basis in the respondent Cooperative Bank on 7.3.1986. The appointment was meant for 89 days but the same was renewed from time to time till 12.5.1987 whereafter the contract of employment was not renewed. The appellant- workman raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. 3. Case of the workman was that since he had rendered more than 240 days service, termination of his services were covered under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the procedure laid down therein having not been followed, he was LPA No.1288 of 2009 2 entitled to reinstatement with backwages. It was also submitted that the order of termination amounted to punishment for misconduct without holding an inquiry and was bad on that account. 4. The Management opposed the claim of the workman by submitting that he was on probation and during probationary period his work and conduct being not satisfactory his services were terminated and it did not amount to any stigma. Last renewal of respondent's appointment was for a period of one month and thus non renewal of contract of employment was not covered by the definition of retrenchment under Section 2 (oo). The Labour Court upheld the claim of the workman holding that since MW-1 Gopal Krishan Sood appearing for the management admitted that there were bad reports against workman, termination amounted to stigma and was illegal in the absence of a proper inquiry. It was also observed that after termination of service of the appellant, other employees were recruited without giving fresh opportunity to the appellant. Accordingly, the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with wages. 5. The award was challenged by filing writ petition. 6. Learned Single Judge upheld contention raised on behalf of the Management that order of termination was not in the nature of punishment. Mere fact that services of a temporary workman were terminated on account of bad reports, order could not be held to be punitive. The appellant had not been appointed by following service rules nor against any sanctioned post. In such a situation reinstatement with backwages was not called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that order of termination having been passed without compliance of Section 25-F was LPA No.1288 of 2009 3 rightly held to be illegal by the Labour Court and that termination order on the ground of unsatisfactory work amounted to misconduct for which inquiry was must. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Azam Hussaini versus Andhra Bank Ltd. A.I.R. 1995 SC 1352, wherein reference has also been made to earlier judgment in Management of Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss Shanti Patnaik AIR 1966 SC 1051. In that case, in absence of any provision in standing order, termination of the employee for unsatisfactory work was held to be misconduct and order of termination was held to be by way punishment, which could not be sustained without holding an inquiry. 9. We are unable to accept this submission. The judgment in Shanti Patnaik (supra) related to order of termination passed in absence of any provision permitting termination. In the present case, the appointment of the workman was for a fixed period and there was no violation of any standing order. Moreover, the said judgment related to order of termination passed prior to amendment of Section 2 (oo) in the year 1984. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Versus Mamni AIR 2006 SC 2427. Therein appointment was for 89 days followed by re-appointment after a gap of one or two days. A finding was recorded that intention of the management was not to engage the workman for a specified period. It was held that clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) was not attracted and the workman was entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. It was also observed therein that reinstatement with back wages could not be given and in view of judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Uma Devi & Ors. 2006 (2) S.C.T. 462, employment could not be LPA No.1288 of 2009 4 regularized. Reference was also made to Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2006 @ SLP No. 23732 of 2004), wherein instead of reinstatement and backwages, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was held to be paid. These judgments negative the case of the appellant for reinstatement with back wages. At best, he could be awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 30,000/-. As against this, learned counsel for the workman fairly states that for the last 20 years after order of termination, the appellant was getting wages during the pendency of the proceedings and has received amount far in excess of compensation awarded in the said cases. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 20, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE