Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2133 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Presiding Officer

2007-12-06

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2007
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This order will dispose of C.W.P. No. 2034 of 2007 and C.W.P. No. 8802 of 2007. 2. In C.W.P. No. 8802 of 2007, filed by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, award dated 29.11.2005, Annexure P-3 has been challenged to the extent of direction for reinstatement of the workman with 20% backwages. 3. In C.W.P. No. 2034 of 2007 filed by the workman, challenge is to denial of full backwages in the said Award. 4. Case of the workman was that he worked as Tube-well Operator from 26.9.1995 to 3.4.1996 when his services were terminated without following any procedure. He filed a suit for injunction against the order of termination, which was also dismissed and appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute. 5. The management contested the claim pointing out that the Municipal Corporation was statutory body and provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short, "the Act") were not attracted having regard to nature of appointment of the workman. 6. The Labour Court held that the workman having worked for more than 240 days, termination of his services in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, was void and the workman was entitled to reinstatement but financially starving Municipal Corporation could not be burdened with the backwages for a short period of service rendered by the workman. 7. In the writ petition. stand taken by the Municipal Corporation is that the workman was not appointed as per rules and regulations but was a contractual employee on daily wages and termination of his services did not amount to retrenchment. He could not be reinstated in view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others. (2006)4 SCC I : [2006(3) SLR 1 (SC]. 8. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that termination of his services being illegal, the workman was entitled to full backwages. The management has neither implemented the award so far nor has challenged the same for more than one year. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. We find that the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar. The management has neither implemented the award so far nor has challenged the same for more than one year. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. We find that the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar. (2006)3 SCC 81 is that unless an employee is appointed as per rules and regulations, his appointment cannot he treated to be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Appointment given de hors the rules and regulations is liable to be termination and is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act and thus, does not amount to retrenchment. Similarly, in Ganbadhar Pillai v. Siemens Limited, (2007)1 SCC 533 : [2007(1) SLR 302 (SC], Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen. (2007)1 SCC 408 : [2007(1) SLR 388 (SC]. Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma and another, (2006)6 SCC 221 and UP Power Corporation Ltd. and another v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh and others (2007)5 SCC 75; : [2007(3) SLR 589) (SC]. it has been held that reinstatement of a workman in public employment will not be consistent with Article 14 unless a workman has been appointed by following rules and regulations. 11. In view of above, we allow C.W.P. No. 8802 of 2007 and quash the impugned award. C.W.P. No. 2034 of 2007 is dismissed. 12. However, being regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the management neither implemented the award nor challenged the same for more than one year, the workman will be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 25.000/-.