Haryana Rajya Sainik Board vs Mohan Lal & Anr

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant- Haryana Rajya Sainik Board-cum-Defence & Security Relief Fund & Member Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") is a social welfare organization registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aim, object and purpose of the Committee are to look after the welfare of war widows, their dependents, ex- servicemen, disabled armed officials, their dependents and 2 dependents of the serving officials. The appellant-Committee does not receive any grant from the Central Government. It receives its finance from the Defence Security Relief Fund which had been raised in the years 1965 and 1972 out of public donations during declaration of hostilities between India and Pakistan. The grant-in-aid is being provided by Haryana Government only to augment the Defence and Security Relief Fund [for short `DSR Fund'].

5. The appellant-Committee on 01.10.1991 appointed Mohan Lal-respondent as Mali on daily wage. As per the terms and conditions of the letter of engagement placed on record of this appeal, the services of the respondent were liable to be terminated at any point of time. The services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 27.02.1993 being temporary in nature.

7. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, by Award dated 02.02.1999 in Reference No. 10/1994 held the termination of the services of the respondent illegal and unjustified and accordingly, directed his reinstatement with continuity in service. However, the claim with regard to back wages was given up by the respondent, therefore, he was not held entitled to back wages.

8. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed writ petition in the year 2003 [W.P. No.563/2003] before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh praying for issue of mandamus directing the appellant-Committee to regularise his services. The Division Bench of the High Court, on the basis of Policy Instructions dated 07.03.1996 issued by the State of Haryana with regard to regularizing the work 4 charged/casual/daily-rated employees of the departments of the State Government, directed the appellant-Committee - "to regularize the services of respondent and, accordingly, grant him other benefits as a regular employee". The appellant- Committee being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench filed a review application before the High Court, which came to be dismissed on September 27, 2005. Hence, the appellant-Committee has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition challenging the correctness and validity of the orders of the High Court.

12. The appointment of the respondent as `Mali' (Gardener) by the Assistant Manager, Sainik Pariwar Bhawan, Chhachhrauli, with effect from 01.10.1991 (FN) as per the daily wage fixed by the Deputy Commissioner is not in dispute. The services of the respondent were terminated on 27.02.1993 in terms of the engagement letter. Against the termination order, the respondent raised the industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the State of Haryana and finally the Labour Court, as stated above, directed the appellant-Committee to reinstate the respondent with continuity in service without back-wages. Before the High Court, it was the categorical defence of the appellant- Committee that the respondent was appointed as Mali for a 7 temporary period at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. The respondent, in compliance to the Award of the Labour Court, has been reinstated by the appellant-Committee. It was also contended that the appellant-Committee has not received any grant from the Central Government or the State Government of Haryana, but it receives its finances from the DSR Fund which has been raised out of public donations received in the wake of 1965 and 1972 wars with Pakistan. However, the grant-in-aid is being provided by Haryana Government only to augment the DSR Fund which was set up for the welfare of ex-servicemen and their dependents, war widows, soldiers' widows and their dependents, etc. etc. The appellant-Committee also stated that none of the daily wagers working with the Committee have been regularized by the appellant-Committee against the vacancy which is reserved only for ex-servicemen and war widows, etc. It was also submitted that no other employee was selected or engaged in place of the respondent after the Award of the Labour Court which was complied with by the appellant-Committee.

15. In the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the judgment of the High Court directing the appellant- Committee "to regularize the services of the respondent and, accordingly, grant him all other benefits of regular employee"

16. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order dated 26.04.2005 of the Division Bench passed in CWP No. 563/2003 and order dated 27.09.2005 dismissing 12 the Review Application No. 236/2005 in the said writ petition, are quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent would stand dismissed. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.