Avtar Singh vs The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and Another

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.02.1993 (Annexure P-3) whereby his services were dispensed with on the ground that the work for which he was appointed had come to an end. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Electrician on work-charge basis by order dated 02.05.1985 and as mentioned above his services were terminated by the impugned order. The grievance raised in the petition is that one Gurmail Singh who was also appointed as an Electrician on work-charge basis on 09.03.1987 was not only permitted to continue even after the services of the petitioner were terminated rather he was first deputed to the same place where the petitioner was working and was put on the same work which the petitioner was doing and, to add insult to injury, the services of Gurmail Singh were regularized by order dated 23.07.1996. In the circumstances, the petitioner has claimed that his termination order should be set aside and he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 however states that the petitioner has passed away on 25.07.1994 and therefore even if the order is set aside neither reinstatement nor any consequential benefits can be granted to the petitioner since even his junior was regularized much after his death.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to counter this indefeasible argument. He has however argued that in any case the order of termination being illegal some relief should be granted to the legal representatives of the petitioner who are before this Court.

As regards the termination of services of the petitioner, from a narration of the facts as mentioned above it is clear that the same is illegal and unwarranted. However, it cannot be gain-said that had the services of the petitioner not been terminated and had he continued, his death on 25.07.1994 would have meant that he passed away as a work-charge employee. In the circumstances, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner would be damages. The quantification of damages in such a case poses great difficulty. Obviously after 20 years it cannot be linked to the pay of the petitioner which he was drawing or to any other principal of compensation for wrongful termination mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand, a perusal of Annexure P-3 (termination order) shows that at that time the compensation envisaged by the Industrial Disputes Act was duly granted to the petitioner.

Keeping in mind the entire spectrum of facts, in my considered opinion it would be in the interest of justice if compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in toto is paid to the LRs of the petitioner. Resultantly, the respondent No. 2 is directed to make the payment of Rs. 1 lakh in toto to the LRs of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the LRs of the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from today till the date of payment.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.