Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rupam K.Aggarwal, Advocate for Mrs. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.C.Verma, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Radhika, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) By this order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions i.e. C.W.P.No.3322 of 1989 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another and C.W.P.No.8917 of 1989 Makhan Singh vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another, wherein challenge has been made to the award dated 3.5.1988 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda. Both the parties, the management as well as the workman, are aggrieved of the said award and have approached this Court for decision thereon. The facts are not in dispute in the present case. The workman was appointed by the Management and he continued in service until his services were terminated with effect from 2.7.1982.

He contends that his services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or C.W.P.No.3322 of 1989 -2- compensation, which fact has not been disputed by the Management but the stand taken therein is that he was appointed on 89 days basis and was given extensions time and again till the date of his termination which according to them was in accordance with his contract as the period of his appointment had come to an end. Counsel for the petitioner in C.W.P.No.3322 of 1989 preferred by the Management, contends that since the period of the workman's appointment had expired he had no right to continue on the said post. He contends that the claim of the workman would be covered against him as the same would fall under Section 2 (oo) clause (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He contends that since that would be the position as far as his termination is concerned, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not be applicable and therefore, the award cannot be sustained for the reason that although the workman would have served with the Management for more than 240 days yet he would not be entitled to the benefit under the Act which would have accrued to him under Section 25-F of the Act.

On the other hand, counsel for the workman has contended that the termination of the workman was with effect from 2.7.1982 whereas clause (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act came into effect from August, 1984. The day on which the termination of the workman had come into existence the provisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner were not on the statute book and, therefore, the same cannot be enforced qua the workman in the present case. In the light of this factual position which cannot be C.W.P.No.3322 of 1989 -3- controverted, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected. Counsel for the workman has vehemently argued that since the termination of the workman has been held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, he, apart from reinstatement with continuity of service is entitled to back-wages as well. A perusal of the record would show that there was a delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Competent Authority with the demand notice.

Further in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court with regard to back-wages is also quite justified and reasonable. Since there is no illegality in the award impugned herein, I do not intend to interfere in the said award and therefore, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. January 23, 2009 poonam ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No