Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1830 (PNJ)

Zonal Manager, Punjab And Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar

2007-10-11

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The petition has been filed against the Award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, directing payment of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the workman instead of reinstatement and backwages claimed. 2. Case of the workman before the Labour Court was that the workman was appointed in the Bank and his services were terminated on 1.2.2002 after completion of 240 days without compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). 3. Case of the workman was taken up along with twelve industrial disputes mentioned in para 2 of the Award. The Labour Court also observed that the workman tiled Writ Petition No. 834 of 2002 for regularisation in this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the workman. The Bank terminated the services of the workman. The workman was appointed on temporary basis. 4. The management contested the claim on the ground that appointment of the workman was not by competent authority after following due procedure laid down in statutory rules. No appointment letter was given. No interview was held. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006)4 SCC 1 : [2006(3) SLR I (SC] and Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3657 : [1997(2) SLR 570 (SC]. The candidates were not requisitioned from the Employment Exchange nor any selection was undertaken. Reliance was also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Brij Bhushan v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Coma and others, 1998(4) SLR 15, holding that if appointment was by way of back door entry, reinstatement and backwages could not be awarded. Further reference was made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005)5 SCC 591 : [2005(5) SLR 51 (SC], wherein it was held that backwages could not be awarded mechanically. 5. The Labour Court held that though the workman was not entitled to reinstatement, he was entitled to compensation as he had rendered service for more than 240 days and the management had not paid any compensation. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 5. The Labour Court held that though the workman was not entitled to reinstatement, he was entitled to compensation as he had rendered service for more than 240 days and the management had not paid any compensation. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to be paid within three months from the date of publication of the Award, failing which, interest @15% per annum was liable to be paid. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank. 7. In view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others, 2007(5) SCC 755 : [2007(3) SLR 589 (SC], it is now well settled that in public employment, appointments made without following rules and regulations, cannot be held to be consistent with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in such a situation, right under Section 25-F of the Act can also not be enforced. The considerations in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra) have been held to be applicable even in such a situation. Similar view has also been taken in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, (2006)1 SCC 667 : [2006(1) SLR 774 (SC], Reserve Bank of India v. Gopi Nath Sharma, (2006)6 SCC 221, State of M.P. and other v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007)1 SCC 575 : [2007(2) SLR 74 (SC], State of M.P. and other v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and other, (2006)8 SCC 67 : [2006(5) SLR 834 (SC], M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and other v. S.C. Pandey, (2006)2 SCC 716 and M.P. Housing Board and another v. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006)2 SCC 702 : [2006(7) SLR 316 (SC]. It has also been held in Municipal Corporation, Samrala v. Raj Kumar, (2006)3 SCC 81 that in such a situation, contract of service being terminable, Section 25-F of the Act will not be attracted. The case will fall under exception (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act. To this extent, the view of the labour Court is consistent with the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court. 8. As regard payment of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation, we are of the view that no interference with the Award of compensation is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution having regard to the facts and circumstances considered by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.