Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2151 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kumar v. Labour Court,Patiala

2006-05-16

ARVIND KUMAR, J.S.NARANG

body2006
Judgment J. S. NARANG, J. 1. The petitioner had questioned the order of termination dated august 18,1989 by way of seeking reference under Sec.10 (1) (c) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The appropriate government made the reference and the matter was adjudicated upon by the Labour Court. It has been held that the workman is not entitled to reinstatement but the compensation paid was short by a sum of Rs.73.50 and that the same has been computed by enhancing the same to the extent of rs.500.00 payable by the management. This award dated July 28,1993, made by the Labour Court, has been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 2. It has been averred that the workman had put in eight years of service with the respondent Board (Punjab State Electricity Board,patiala)as work charge driver and was drawing Rs.1497.00 p. m. by way of wages. It has been alleged that he had been wrongly terminated without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry or payment of compensation. 3. The respondent Board contested the claim of the workman by filing a detailed written statement. It is the stand of the Board that the workman had rendered one year and four months service w. e. f. March 21,1988 to August 17,1989. The workman had been retrenched and that the retrenchment compensation to the tune of Rs.675/- was offered to him which was duly accepted by him. However, the workman refused to receive the notice period pay which the respondent Board was ready to pay. Since the workman had been retrenched from service in accordance with law, therefore, is not entitled to any relief. 4. Upon pleadings of the parties, issues had been framed and the parties led their respective evidence accordingly. The documentary evidence i. e. letters Ex. M3 to Ex. M5 had been written to the workman from time to time for receiving the amount but he did not pay any heed to it. It has also been stated that the workman would be given employment as and when the vacancy arises in the Board. 5. The Labour Court has considered the evidence in its totality and has come to the conclusion that the workman had rendered only one year and four months service. The plea of the workman that he had rendered eight years service has not been proved. 5. The Labour Court has considered the evidence in its totality and has come to the conclusion that the workman had rendered only one year and four months service. The plea of the workman that he had rendered eight years service has not been proved. It has been noticed that the workman had rendered service as a Truck Cleaner in TLSC Sub division, w. e. f. February 1983 to December 24,1987. Thereafter, the workman remained out of service and he joined afresh in Protection cell,ferozepur. The workman having rendered service in two different branches at different times, cannot be given the benefit of continuity of service accordingly. The question which arose is that, whether the workman had been given benefit of Sec.25-F of the Act, when he had been retrenched from service. It has been concluded that the workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation for 15 days period amounting to rs.748.50 but he had been offered only Rs.675/- and, therefore, the workman was entitled to reinstatement. 6. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the compensation paid was short by a sum of Rs.73.50. The computation has been ordered by way of enhancing the compensation to the extent of rs.500.00 while relying upon a judgment of this court rendered in re: Punjab state Electricity Board V/s. State of Punjab, 1993 (1) S. C. T.103. It had been indicated that against the aforesaid judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court, LPA No.1330 of 1992 had been filed which stood admitted. Consequently, the instant petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of LPA No.1330 of 1992. We have been informed that the aforesaid LPA has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 24,1998 and that the judgment of learned Single Judge has been upheld. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in that case the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay of 12 years but in the instant case there is no such impediment as the termination was ordered on August 18,1989 and immediately the reference was sought which was made on January 5,1990 and that the decision was rendered by the Labour Court on July 28,1993. We refrain ourselves from entertaining this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We refrain ourselves from entertaining this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A categoric reliance has been placed upon the admission of LPA against the judgment relied upon by the Labour Court and that the instant petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of the aforesaid LPA. It does not lie within the domain of the learned counsel for the petitioner to raise the contention that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by the LPA bench on the ground of unexplained delay of 12 years only. The perusal of the judgment of the HON BLE LPA Bench shows that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge has been upheld and no ground had been found to interfere with the same. 8. Perusal of the judgment of learned Single Judge shows that the retrenchment had been upheld but declined to grant indulgence on technical violation of Sec.25-F of the Act. It has been observed that if there be any technical violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, it would not in all cases entitle the workman the relief of reinstatement unless a finding is also given by the Labour Court that the retrenchment was not justified. In a given case if some employees in an establishment have become surplus, the management would be well within its right and would be justified in retrenching them. If the mistake is committed while computing the compensation, this would not entitle the workmen the relief of reinstatement. In the instant case the Labour Court had accepted the retrenchment having been made correctly and justifiably. Therefore, the compensation having been paid short by a sum of Rs.73.50 cannot be termed such a violation of Sec.25-F of the Act, so as to entitle the workman to be be justified for reinstatement. It is not a case of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation or paying the same after the date of retrenchment. It is a case of error in calculation, which can be rectified without incurring the impediment of Sec.25-F of the Act. 9. In our opinion, the Labour Court has correctly exercised the discretion in computing the enhanced compensation to be paid to the workman i. e. Rs.500.00. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.