IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14670 of 2006 Date of decision:05.09.2009 UCO Bank, Karnal ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harish Chander Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The award that is impugned in the writ petition is a direction for reinstatement without back wages. The contention of the learned counsel before this Court is that he was a temporary workman, who was appointed as a Driver for a Jeep on daily wages and his services were terminated only in the manner which had been provided for in an earlier award passed by the Labour Court on 07.09.2001. That was an occasion when the workman had complained of his termination made on 21.10.1994 as bad. The workman admittedly had been appointed on 11.06.1991 and had been on continuous service upto 21.10.1994. When the termination was made, it became a subject of dispute that was disposed of by the Labour Court directing reinstatement and continuity Civil Writ Petition No.14670 of 2006 - 2 - of service but denying to him his back wages and also observing in its award dated 07.09.2001 that the management shall be at liberty to dispense with the services of the applicant after complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Taking cue from the direction of the Labour Court, the management purported to serve the workman with a fresh order of termination on 17.01.2002 in the following words:- “We have to inform you that you were engaged on daily wage basis during the period 11.6.1991 to 21.10.1994 and now no post of Driver exists at our branch, therefore, your services are dispensed with immediate effect i.e. 17.01.2002.” Along with the other, the workman was also offered a month’s wages but did not provide for a computation of compensation in the manner set forth under Section 25-F. The Labour Court found that there had been no due compliance of Section 25-F and directed reinstatement. The attempt of the learned counsel from the Bank before this Court was, therefore, to show that the dispensation of service which they had made was as per the liberty granted to them by the Labour Court in its award dated 07.09.2001. In my view, the manner of termination of services is on account of improper understanding of the effect of the award passed by the Labour Court on 07.09.2001. When it was setting aside the order of termination earlier made and providing for continuity of service, the fresh order of termination ought to have taken the service that commenced on 11.06.1991 till the date when it chose to pass a fresh order of termination as the period when the workman was in service. The compensation under Section 25-F ought to have, therefore, allowed Civil Writ Petition No.14670 of 2006 - 3 - for computation of the entire period from 11.06.1991 to 17.01.2002 as the period when he was in service and provided for 15 days salary for each year of such service. The liberty that the Court granted would be illusory to a workman and the award of the Labour Court itself would be rendered nugatory if an interpretation were to be cast that it could dispense with the services of the workman anyway, even without providing for compensation. It is also meaningless to give such an interpretation for the award itself states that the termination shall be made in the manner provided under Section 25-F. The order passed on 17.01.2002 without due computation of the wages for the number of years that he served, was clearly wrong and illegal. The Labour Court had entered a correct finding on the same and had while setting aside the impugned order of termination directed reinstatement. 3. Before this Court, the attempt was again to state that there was no post available for a Driver and it was not possible to accommodate him. The workman put on record an advertisement issued even during the pendency of the proceedings along with an application in C.M. No.9351 of 2007 showing that the Bank had advertised for the post of Drivers. It also transpired that the workman had also applied for the same and in the counter to the application filed by the workman, the Bank had contended that they would consider his engagement. Two years have passed and consideration has come to nothing. The contention that there was no post available is a point which would again avail to the management in an appropriate manner after he goes back to service by virtue of the award of the Labour Court which is affirmed in this Court. Civil Writ Petition No.14670 of 2006 - 4 - 4. There is no merit in the writ petition and the award of the Labour Court is confirmed. The petitioner shall also bear the costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.09.2009 sanjeev