Baljit Singh v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the Workmen (Sr. No. 1 to 8). Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the Workmen (Sr. No. 9, 12 to 21). Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the Workmen (Sr. No. 10 to 11). Mr. I.P. Singh Advocate, with Mr. J.S. Sathi, Advocate, for the Bank. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In compliance with the Order dated 11.05.2010, passed by this Court, Mr. I.P. Singh, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, has placed on record a communication received by him from respondent-Bank, wherein the representations made by the Workmen, have been considered and it has been decided as follows :- “ .... The representations have been considered in the light of the statement made by the counsel as well as directions given by the Hon’ble High Court. The Petitioners/Temp. Peons have given statement through their counsel not to claim C.W.P. No. 18154 of 2007 and other connected cases. -6- regularisation in service and also the back wages in case they were allowed to be reinstated. They have prayed for giving preference in case of fresh appointment which can not be permitted however they can be considered as per Policy of the Bank adopted at the relevant time. There are some vacancies available at present in the Amritsar Zone and the Petitioners can be accommodated till regular appointments are made in this regard. The Petitioners shall have no right to claim regularisation, past service benefits as well as back wages. They shall be paid minimum pay as is being paid to those who are serving in the light of interim orders of this Hon’ble Court. These are special cases keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases especially when there are two different Awards of same set of person and one set of person is serving for the last about two years in terms of interim orders, as such this decision is not to be considered as a precedent for any other case. Though there is no such policy of the bank to accommodate such category of persons yet if the Hon’ble High Court direct, the bank shall comply with the same on the aforesaid terms and conditions as well as undertaking to be given. As regards to deceased case of Dev Rj and Naresh Chander are concerned, their legal heirs can not be given any appointment since there is no Policy of any compassionate appointment of Temporary Peons or Class IV employees of such category. Apart from this the right of service is personal right which stands expired on the death of a person. One of them was C.W.P. No. 18154 of 2007 and other connected cases. -7- reinstated as per interim order of this Hon’ble Court and he died while serving, thus got the reinstatement. As a special case in order to meet the misery of the families of the deceased an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each would be adequate compensation. The amount of Rs. 40,000/- was also held by Labour Court cum CGIT, Chandigarh, to be adequate compensation as per Award given in one set of cases. We have received only 12 representations including two of deceased cases as per list enclosed and the same have been decided despite the fact that no undertaking in terms of the order dated 11.05.2010 has been given by any one of them. They may be directed to file undertakings as per the decision taken by the Bank as per details given above. In case the undertakings are not filled by Temp. Peons whose cases are pending in the Hon’ble High Court the cases may be decided on merits without prejudice to this decision which has been taken as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court. .......” The said decision taken by respondent-Bank is acceptable to counsel for the Workmen except for one aspect, which has been highlighted by them, i.e., they would not be entitled to past service benefits as well as the back wages, which has been mentioned in the said decision. Counsel for the Workmen submit that both the things are self- contradictory as the back wages pre-supposes the continuity of service. The Workmen have already given undertakings that they would not claim back wages and, therefore, they may be granted the benefit of continuity of service. The contention as raised by counsel for the Workmen is justifiable as the question of grant or non grant of back wages would only arise, when C.W.P. No. 18154 of 2007 and other connected cases. -8- there is continuity of service and, therefore, when back wages are not being granted, past service benefits need to be granted to them. In view of the above, the decision taken by respondent-Bank as has been reproduced hereinabove and accepted by counsel for the Workmen, is made the Rule of the Court with a rider that the Workmen would be entitled to past service benefits, but would not be entitled to back wages for the said period. Counsel for the Workmen further state that the Workmen would file undertakings as per the decision taken by respondent-Bank as reproduced above, within a period of one week from today. Counsel for the Bank states that the Bank would take necessary steps as per the decision reproduced hereinabove within a period of seven days thereafter and the respondent-Bank would be at liberty to post them at any place wherever the vacancies available in the Amritsar Zone. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, it would not be treated as a precedent for all intents and purposes. Copy of this Order be given dasti under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court to counsel for the parties. Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected cases. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 26, 2010. sjks.