Civil Writ Petition No. 11142 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11142 of 1993 Date of decision:8th March, 2011 Anil Kumar .......Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. J.C.Puri, Addl. A.G.Punjab, for State of Punjab-respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) Vide notification dated 19.06.1992, the following question was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Bathinda:- “Whether termination of services of the workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled to?” On receipt of reference, case No. 259 of 1992 was registered in the learned Labour Court and notice was issued to the contesting parties. Thereafter, the workman in his written statement contended that he had been working under the management since 19.11.1985 and was drawing salary in the grade of ` 400-600/- until his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1987 without any notice or opportunity. No written statement on Civil Writ Petition No. 11142 of 1993 2 behalf of the management was filed before the learned Labour Court. The workman had examined himself as a witness in proceeding before the learned Labour Court. In his deposition, he stated that he worked continuously from 19.11.1985 to 31.12.1987 in the pay scale of ` 400-600/- and after his termination he remained out of job which was not forthcoming inspite of efforts made by him. The workman also deposed that his termination was not preceded by any enquiry or opportunity. In the above circumstances, the learned Labour Court came to the finding that the termination of the services of the workman amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Act. However, the learned Labour Court refused to grant any relief to the workman on the ground that he had raised the demand by issuing a notice on 14.01.1991, which was beyond the period of 3 years that would be available under the Limitation Act to file a suit challenging the termination order. There is no period of limitation prescribed by the Act within which a demand notice can be given by a workman. The analogy adopted by the learned Labour Court, therefore, cannot be said to be correct and hence, relief could not have been denied on the basis that the workman had raised the demand beyond the period of three years of the accrual of the cause of action. The findings of the Labour Court that the termination of the services of the workman was wrongful and in violation of the provisions of the Act has not been challenged by the management. Hence the entitlement of the workman to the reliefs claim will have to be considered. A long period of time has elapsed. Obviously, reinstatement Civil Writ Petition No. 11142 of 1993 3 cannot be considered to be a feasible relief to be granted. Therefore, the Court will have to consider the question of grant of retrenchment compensation and to determine the quantum thereof, which would satisfy the ends of justice. Not much material is forthcoming with regard to the present status of the workman and the period for which he remained unemployed following the termination of his service. However, from the deposition made by the workman as WW-1, it transpires that at least for a period of five years from the date of termination i.e. 31.12.1987, the workman was unable to find an alternative job. Even if it is assumed that he found employment immediately thereafter, what stares at the face of the Court is his unemployed status for at least a period of five years following the termination of service. Therefore, taking into account the said period as the yardstick and the possible earnings that the workman could have earned during the said period, we are of the view, that retrenchment compensation of ` 50,000/- should be paid to the workman by the management within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy thereof. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and modify the award dated 4.02.1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda in Reference Case No. 259 of 1992 to the extent indicated above. [RANJAN GOGOI] CHIEF JUSTICE [AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH] JUDGE 8th March, 2011 Shivani Kaushik