Laxmi Soni vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, above mentioned petitions would be disposed of as controversy involved in all these cases, is similar.

Facts taken from CWP No. 5201 of 1994.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as Receptionist-cum-PBX Operator vide order dated 16.4.1985. Petitioner was later regularized with effect from 2.7.1985. Vide impugned order dated 22.10.1992, services of the petitioner were terminated without holding any enquiry. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.1994.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the petitioners were regular employees of respondent No. 2. However, vide similar impugned termination orders, services of the petitioners were terminated without any enquiry. The termination orders were non-speaking orders. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners on irrelevant considerations and without any material on record. All the appeals were disposed of by the committee by passing one order. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners were liable to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions and has submitted that respondent No. 2-corporation went into losses and decided to wind up the same vide notification dated 17.11.1998 (Annexure R-1/1). After winding up order, the remaining eight employees were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme. 25 employees were adjusted in various government departments in the year 1996-1997. 95 staff employees and workmen were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme in the month of December 1997 and 35 staff employees and workmen were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme on 14.10.1998. The winding up process of the corporation was going on. Since the corporation was in the process of being wound up, petitioners could not be reinstated in service. Learned State counsel, on instructions from Jagdev Singh, Deputy Manager (Administration and Accounts) O/o. Leather Corporation with addition charge of Hosiery and Knitwear Corporation, has further submitted that under the Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme, following benefits were granted to the employees:-

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners should have raised an industrial dispute being workmen. Learned counsel has further submitted that the corporation had suffered huge loss and was in the process of being wound up. Therefore, petitioners were not liable to be reinstated in service. Learned counsel has also submitted that vide the detailed order passed by the Appellate Authority, some of the employees were ordered to be reinstated but so far as the petitioners are concerned, their work and conduct was not good as they had been working against the interest of corporation. Therefore, the termination of the petitioners were liable to be upheld.

The termination order dated 20.10.1992 (Annexure P-9) of petitioner Laxmi Soni, reads as under:-

In view of the powers of the Managing Director delegated to me by the Board of Directors of Punjab State Hosiery and Knitwear Development Corporation Limited in its meeting held on 19th October, 1992 at Chandigarh vide resolution No. 68.10 I hereby order that your services as Librarian from Punjab State Hosiery and Knitwear Development Corporation Limited, Ludhiana are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You may settle your accounts with the corporation within one week hereof as per the terms of the appointment letter and you are further directed to hand over the charge to the Administrative Officer forthwith.

Similar orders were issued qua other petitioners also. Operative part of the order passed by the committee in appeal, reads as under:-

After careful consideration, the committee has come to the following conclusion:-

Taking a lenient view of the whole situation and in deference to the directions of the Hon''ble High Court, which referred the appeals to the BOD for personal hearing and consideration, the following 3 appellants may be reinstated into the Corporation. These are Sh. Sital Singh Saini, Smt. Gian Kaur and Smt. Saroj Bala. They will resume the charge they held before their services were terminated. At the same time they are warned to be careful and to improve their performance in view of the chance being given to them again. Their performance will be reviewed regularly. However, they will not be entitled to the wages for the period they did not work i.e. from the date of termination till date of re-instatement/rejoining.

Since Sh. T.S. Khurana after his termination has started his own professional Accounts and consultancy services at Mohali, as such he showed his least inclination to resume the services but claimed only the package of service benefits. As such, the appeal of Sh. T.S. Khurana challenging the termination orders is dismissed with the observation that in case concerned appellant lodges his claim for the service benefits then the same shall be entertained and disposed of under the rules within a reasonable time.

The remaining 10 appellants namely S/Shri/Shrimati Karamjit Singh, P.K. Puri, H.S. Ghai, Arvinderpal Singh, Lakshmi Soni, Naresh Chand Bhatowa, P.N. Chobey, R.B. Kanwar, Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Mohan Lal shall remain terminated since the committee has found that there is no scope of reinstating them since they are in the habit of playing a negative role and vitiating the working atmosphere of the corporation and tend to incite the labour to damage the Corporation by going on un-warranted strikes, reducing production and damaging the plaint itself. It is not advisable to induct these people back for the safety of the Corporation. The Corporation today is trying to make both ends meet and ensure that 250 odd employees/workers who are still in the Corporation are kept in their jobs and paid regularly out of the earnings of the Corporation from its present working. It is feared that if these people are back in the jobs, the earning potential of the Corporation will reduce drastically and it is also feared that the Corporation may be irreparably damaged, thus jeopardizing the jobs of all the other existing employees/workers also.

As such in view of reasons given above and conferring with the report of the sub-committee, which is based on the previous service records and personal hearing of the respective appellants, the appeals of S/Shri Karamjit Singh, P.K. Puri, H.S. Ghai, Arvinderpal Singh, Smt. Lakshmi Soni, Naresh Chand Bhatowa, P.N. Chobey, R.B. Kanwar, Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Mohan Lal are hereby dismissed being without any merit. The report of sub-committee and the reasoning given therein pertaining to each of the appellants be considered as part of this order. The copy of the order be sent individually accompanied with the report of sub-committee to each of the above appellant.

The decision of the committee given above may be implemented immediately and the ex-post-facto approval of the Board be taken in the next meeting of the Board of Directors.

Petitioners were working with respondent No. 2 and their services were terminated vide similar orders. From the perusal of the termination order, reproduced hereinabove, it is evident that no enquiry was held against the petitioners before their termination. It is only while deciding the appeals, the Appellate Authority has made out a case justifying the termination of the petitioners that they were working against the interest of the corporation. However, in this regard, no enquiry was ever held against the petitioners. In these circumstances, the termination of the petitioners is liable to be set aside as they had been terminated without holding any departmental enquiry.

The question now that arises for consideration is as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners as the corporation in question is in the process of being wound up.

Since the corporation is in the process of being wound up, petitioners cannot be granted the relief of reinstatement. From the written statement filed by the respondents it is evident that those employees who were working with the corporation, had been retrenched under the Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme.

Paras 2 and 3 of the written statement read as under:-

That it is submitted that 25 employees were adjusted in various Govt. Departments in the year 1996-97; 95 staff employees and workmen were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Scheme in the month of December 1997; and 35 staff employees and workmen were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Scheme on 14.10.1998 by the Corporation/respondent No. 2.

That it is submitted that the Corporation/respondent No. 2 went into losses and thus the State Govt. decided to wind up the same, as per notification No. 9/9/995-31B/7461 dated 17th November, 1998. The certified copy of the notification is annexed as Annexure R-1/1. After the winding up order dated 17th November, 1998, the remaining 8 employees were retrenched under Golden Hand Shake Scheme on the following dates:-

The last employee (Skelton staff) of the Corporation was relieved on 31.12.2004. Hence, no regular employee is currently on the rolls of the Corporation/respondent No. 2.

Thus, even the employees, who were working with the corporation, were ultimately retrenched in terms of the Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme. Thus, petitioners at the most can be held entitled to be given the benefit under the Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme.

Since the writ petitions are pending in this regard since the year 1994/1995, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to go into the question as to whether petitioners should have raised an industrial dispute or not.

Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed with a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners benefit under the Golden Hand Shake Benefit Scheme which was introduced in the month of December 1997 at the time of retrenchment of 95 staff employees and workmen.