Haryana Agricultural University vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Another

Paramjeet Singh, J.—In the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order/Award dated 2.5.1991 (Annexure P-6) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been reinstated into service with back-wages to the extent of 50% payable from 1.8.1986 to 1.5.1991 and full wages from the date of award i.e. 2.5.1991. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-workman joined the service of the petitioner-university under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ICAR) Scheme as casual worker on daily wages basis on 7.1.1985. The respondent No. 2 was to be paid wages at the Deputy Commissioner''s rate and his attendance was on muster roll. The ICAR scheme was to continue up to 31.3.1987. The respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute that his services had been verbally terminated w.e.f. 1.8.1986, whereby he was stopped to come to attend the work. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 stopped coming to the work on his own w.e.f. 1.8.1986. Three years after stopping to come to the work, respondent No. 2 sent a demand notice dated 18.7.1989 (Annexure P-1) to which the petitioner replied on 14.08.1989 (Annexure P-2). In reply, it is the stand of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was a seasonal worker and he was to be paid wages at the rates fixed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar as were applicable from time to time. On notice, respondent No. 2 appeared and admitted in reply that he joined as a casual labourer initially on 7.1.1985 on daily wages. It is also admitted that no appointment letter was given to him. He was being paid wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar. The respondent also admitted the fact that his attendance was marked only in the muster roll maintained by the petitioner-University. It is further mentioned in the reply that his services had been terminated on 1.8.1986 verbally. The termination was bad in law. The respondent No. 2 had been rightly reinstated and awarded wages. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 2 had completed more than 240 days in twelve calendar months proceeding the date of his termination. There is complete non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short the Act).

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared to address arguments on behalf of respondent No. 2.

The main question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether relief of reinstatement and 50% back-wages granted to respondent No. 2 - workman is justified and whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the ICAR scheme was only up to 31.3.1987. The petitioner was employed on daily wages as a casual worker under the ICAR scheme. The respondent No. 2 at his own stopped coming to perform the work w.e.f. 1.8.1986 and the demand notice had been issued three years thereafter. Specific reply was given by the petitioner - University to the demand notice submitted by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was a seasonal daily wages worker under a specified scheme so the services of respondent No. 2 were purely temporary in nature and co-terminus with the scheme in connection with which he was engaged as a casual worker. But demand notice has been issued after a considerable delay when the scheme had already expired. The impugned award is against law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have no hesitation in holding that the engagement of respondent No. 2 was in connection with scheme founded by the ICAR, New Delhi. This is admitted case of respondent No. 2 himself that he had joined as casual worker and he was being paid wages at the rates fixed by Deputy Commissioner. The services of the petitioner were co-terminus with the life of the scheme which does not entitle the respondent No. 2 to continue in service after the scheme was over.

In the face of these circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to continue after 31.3.1987, so the question of his reinstatement into service does not arise specifically after 31.3.1987.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in case titled Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, has dealt with similar issue wherein the claimant workmen had hardly worked for 2 or 3 years and thereafter abandoned his job. The Hon''ble Apex Court recorded findings as follows:-

Lastly, learned senior counsel submitted that even if the order dated February 10, 1987 amounts to illegal termination for want of compliance of Section 25F of ID Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reinstatement and back wages was not justified and at best monetary compensation to the workmen could have been awarded.

In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate, See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi, : State of M.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, ; Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, ; Sita Ram and Others Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, ; Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, , Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, and Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, .

Recently in Rajkumar Mishra Vs. Jalagaon Municipal Corporation, and in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, , Hon''ble Supreme Court took the identical view.

It may be noticed here that the petitioner was engaged as daily wages worker about 27 years back and had worked from 7.1.1985 to 31.7.1986 i.e. for 1 year and 7 months approximately. In view of the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court, relief of reinstatement and back wages to respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. I am of the considered view that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 - workman shall meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from date of award.

The appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.