Panjab University, Chandigarh v. Parveen Bala & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Panjab University has filed this writ petition to impugn the award passed by Industrial Tribunal, U.T., Chandigarh-cum-Labour Court, U.T., dated 7.1.2001. Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of respondent with 40% back wages. Respondent was appointed as a daily wager as Counter clerk on 24.4.1990. She thereafter has worked till 30.11.2002 with breaks in between. Her services have not been regularised on the ground that she failed in the typing test. It is pleaded that respondent was employed as a seasonal worker to cope up with the work and her name was maintained on a separate seniority list on the basis of total number of days of service put in by her as daily wager. In the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10951 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: year 2002, she had worked in the Secrecy Branch and her services were discontinued being a seasonal worker and she was relieved on

30.11.2002. Respondent accordingly sought reference of this dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court. In her claim petition, respondent No.1 would allege that Sh.Sodhi Ram, the then Registrar, had retained her juniors by showing them senior, who were also less qualified. Ofcourse, the University will dispute this fact and would urge that the Labour Court had failed to appreciate the fact and the stand of the University to the effect that the respondent had not passed the typing test. It is also pleaded that the respondent was offered a job of daily wager as per the current requirement on 17.4.2003 but she declined the same offer. The Labour Court had appreciated the evidence led by the respective parties. As per the evidence given by the respondent, she could establish that she had already completed 240 days service upto July 1991, when she was disengaged. Thereafter, the University had again issued an advertisement for recruitment for the posts of Clerks and the respondent was issued letter to appear in the exam. She qualified in the written test. Still, she was neither engaged nor her services were regularised. The Labour Court found that the University continued to make back door entries of the favorites and relatives of the officials working in the University. Respondent No.1, however, again was engaged on 20.4.1997 and discontinued on

30.9.1997. In the year 1999, the University again decided to conduct written test followed by type test, where respondent No.1 again appeared. It is here that she could not qualify the type test, though CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10951 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: had passed the written test. The respondent thereafter was never given a chance to clear the type test. It is also found that the University continued to engage those workers who had even not qualified in any written test. When the respondent agitated about her rights, she was disengaged on 30.11.2002. This has been found to be in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is held by the Labour Court that the petitioner, though dis-engaged whereas many persons who were relatives of the officials of the University, were appointed/re-appointed. Finding also is that respondent No.1 was disengaged without any notice or payment of compensation. The University has come up with usual stand that the daily wager has no right to claim regularization and that respondent No.1 was offered work, which she refused on 17.4.2003. It is also pleaded that separate seniority list on the basis of number of days service was prepared, which is advanced as a defence. The witness produced by the management (MW1) admitted various details as stated above, while appearing as witness about the days and the time the respondent had worked and her clearing the written test etc. On this basis, the Labour Court is justified in observing that the respondent was employed for different duration between 20.4.1990 and 30.9.1997. The record in regard to this period, however, was not produced. It has come in evidence that respondent was engaged on 9.5.2001 and continued to work upto

30.9.2002. Thus, the Labour Court has held that respondent No.1 had worked for 240 days in a year proceeding 30.9.2002, when she was disengaged. Accordingly, it was found that respondent No.1 was entitled to the protection of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10951 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: She was terminated without any notice or compensation. It is also noticed that names of many persons have been disclosed who were engaged by the management because they were relatives of the officials working in the University. It is, thus, observed that the University had not discontinued the services of many workmen who had joined after the respondent and this would be an unfair labour practice. The Labour Court accordingly found that the University had adopted the policy of pick and choose and violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court has rightly noticed the requirement, which was to be satisfied before directing retrenchment and in this regard, relied on case of Range Forest Officer, Rewari and others Vs. Shri Ram Chander and another, (CPW No.6673 of 2006 (O&M). The Labour Court has also held that the question before the Court was not whether the services of the petitioner are to be regularised but whether she was terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. Finding that the respondent was terminated in clear violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court held the termination to be bad. The termination order having been held bad, reinstatement with 40% back wages would also be justified. Except for raising controversies on facts, the counsel could not point out to any legal infirmity in the impugned order, which would call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 09, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE