Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1583 (PNJ)

Executive Municipal Corporation Nit v. Bir Singh

2007-08-31

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition challenges award dated 3.4.2006 Annexure P.2, reinstating the workman in service with full back wages. 2. Claim of the workman was that he was appointed as Tube-well Operator on 14.4.1996 without any appointment letter and continued till 30.3.1997 at a salary of Rs. 1550/- per month. Thereafter, he was not allowed to work and thus, having rendered serviced for more than 240 days, the order of termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act). 3. The petitioner contested the claim of submitting that the workman was a daily wager and he could not be continued without specific sanction of the appropriate authority, earlier sanction having been expired on 30.3.1997. 4. From the order dated 27.11.2006, we find that notice was issued confined to the question of back wages only. 5. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591, para 8, it was observed that there was no rule of thumb that in every case where Industrial Tribunal gave a finding that termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. Factors like method of selection, nature of appointment, etc. should be weighed and balanced. One of the important factors was the length of service, which had been rendered. In Allahabad Jai Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another, (2005)5 SCC 124, para 6, it was held that Labour Court is entitled to grant relief having regard, to facts and circumstances of each case. In para 16, it was noticed that earlier decisions of the Honble Supreme Court taking the view that on dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with back wages must follow, could not be followed and it was necessary to develop a pragmatic approach by arriving at a golden mean. In U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006)1 SCC 479, para 22, it was observed that no precise formula can be laid down as to when full back wages should be allowed and back wages should not be granted mechanically. In para 43, changes brought about by decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing were noticed. In para 43, changes brought about by decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing were noticed. Reference was also made to judgment in Rattan Singh v. Union of India and another, (1997)11 SCC 396, Para 3, wherein consolidated compensation of Rs. 25000/- was awarded instead of back wages and reinstatement. 6. Moreover, it has been held in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81 that services of an employee appointed on contract basis can be terminated at any time and Section 25-F of the Act is not attracted to such a situation. 7. In Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd., (2007)1 SCC 533, it was observed that if an employee is reinstated, for violation of Section 25-F of the Act, he gets back the same status where he was prior to termination. 8. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra, (2005)5 SCC 122, it was observed that in the case of ad hoc service, provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted. 9. In State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi, (2006)1 SCC 667, it was observed that in absence of a sanctioned post, there is no legal right to continue in service. 10. In Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006)6 Supreme Court Cases 221 it was observed that mere rendering of 240 days of service did not confer any right to continue in service. 11. In the present case, the workman worked for a short duration without any appointment letter and did not acquire any right to continue in service having regard to nature of employment. He was never recruited as per rules and regulations. 12. In above circumstances, we set aside the impugned award to the extent of back wages. Since the notice was confined only to back wages, we do not express any opinion about the order of reinstatement but it is clear that the status of the workman on reinstatement will be the same as he had prior to the order of termination. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.