Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1869 (PNJ)

Divisionl Forest Officer v. Jagat Singh

2008-11-06

HEMANT GUPTA, NAWAL SINGH

body2008
Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award passed by the Labour Court on october 15, 2007 (Annexure P-4), whereby respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman) has been ordered to be reinstated on account of violation of the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the award of the Labour court, directing the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages is not sustainable as such Award runs counter to the judgment of the Hon ble supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others V/s. Umadevi and Others AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006-II-LLJ-722 and Jaipur Development authority V/s. Ramsahai and Another (2006) 11 scc 684 : 2007-I-LLJ-429. 3. The reinstatement of the workman appointed on daily wages de hors the rules of recruitment and without inviting applications from eligible candidates has been found to be not permissible. In Municipal Council, Samala v. Raj Kumar (2006) 3 SCC 81 : 2006-11-LLJ-553; Madhya Pradesh Administration V/s. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 749 : 2007-11-LLJ-577; Gangadhar Pillai V/s. Siemens Limited (2007) 1 SCC 533 : 2007-I-LLJ-717 and reserve Bank of India V/s. Gopinath Sharma (2006) 6 SCC 221, it has been held that workman cannot be ordered to be reinstated on account of violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. In view of the said fact, the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman granting continuity of service and back wages is not sustainable. 4. The learned Labour Court has further held that retention of juniors, namely, Balraj and Khadak Singh violates Sec.25-G of the act. Hon ble Supreme Court in Jaipur development Authority V/s. Ramsahai and another (supra) has held that even if there is violation of Sec.25-G of the Act that will not entitle the workman to be reinstated. It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment in sec. 2 (oo) of the Act is applicable to the provisions contained in chapter VA containing sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. The termination of daily wager is not retrenchment failing within Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment in sec. 2 (oo) of the Act is applicable to the provisions contained in chapter VA containing sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act. The termination of daily wager is not retrenchment failing within Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. Therefore, the workman, who is a daily wager, cannot be reinstated as it does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned labour Court that the workman is entitled to be reinstated is not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned award dated October 15, 2007 , annexure P-4, is set aside. 6. Since the workman has worked for a period of almost 12 years, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.40,000.00 to the respondent- workman within a period of four months. 7. With the said direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.