(O&M) Saroj Kumari v. The C.C.S.- Haryana Agricultural University & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate Ms. Yashika Walia, Advocate for the petitioner-applicant in CWP-475 of 2002 for respondent No. 1 in CWP- 13230 of 2001 Mr. Shubhkarman Singh Gill, Advocate for Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP- 13230 of 2011 for respondents in CWP- 475 of 2002 JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) ***

By this common order, CWP No. 475 of 2002 and CWP No. 13230 of 2011 are hereby adjudicated as common questions of law and facts PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.12 06:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.475 of 2002(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) are involved. With the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP No. 475 of 2002.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 18.01.2001 whereby Labour Court had answered reference in favour of workman.

The petitioner was appointed as Typist by respondent- University on 15.03.1993 for 89 days. Her tenure of service from time to time was extended. The respondent-University did not extend her tenure with effect from 01.03.1995. She approached Labour Court which vide award dated 18.01.2001 ordered to reinstate her with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

The work lady is seeking enhancement of back wages and Management is seeking setting aside of the impugned award. The management was directed to pay to work lady, in terms of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘1947 Act’), during the pendency of present petition. Counsel confirms that work lady, during the pendency of petition, was paid in terms of Section 17-B of 1947 Act.

Counsel for the parties are ad idem that work lady never worked with the Management after 01.03.1995. She at the time of retrenchment was getting salary @ Rs. 1000/- per month. A period of almost 30 years from the date of retrenchment has passed away. She is not claiming reinstatement.

The question which remains pending is as to whether work lady is entitled to back wages as ordered by Tribunal.

Keeping in mind paras 50-52 of judgment of Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996 and to put the PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.12 06:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.475 of 2002(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) litigation to rest, this Court considering the length of service and last drawn pay of the work lady; efflux of time; payment of wages to work lady in terms of Section 17-B of 1947 Act and directions of Tribunal, deems it appropriate to direct the Management to pay a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-as lump sum payment to work lady towards back wages. Let the needful be done within 3 months from today.

In view of the above facts and findings, the petitions stand disposed of.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

12.08.2024 paramjit (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.08.12 06:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document