Narinderpal Singh vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated December 1, 1997 (copy Annexure P-10) vide which his reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages were declined.

The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 on March 1, 1983. His services were terminated on November 19, 1987. He served a demand notice on November, 28,1987 and (hereafter, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court.

Respondent No. 1 has taken up a plea that the petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar to look after the wheat storage and he was engaged on daily wages. Because the work load had considerably decreased, it was decided that the service of the daily wage chowki dars should be disposed with and the petitioner along with other daily paid chowkidars was relieved from service having become surplus. It is further con tended that notice pay/retrenchment compensation, as required u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was given to the petitioner and he received the compensation with out any protest.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this case is that for the purpose of retrenchment, section 25F of the Act will not be applicable and the provisions applicable will be the provisions of Section 25N of the Act because the establishment of respondent No. 1 is having more than 100 workmen. There is the finding of the Labour Court that the number of workmen was more than 300. However, it has the work only of a seasonal nature and during the procurement seasons such like daily wage chowkidars are engaged.

The question is whether the work allotted to the petitioner was of a seasonal nature. No evidence to that effect has been shown to us. Moreover, the respondent-Industry itself cannot be treated as a seasonal one. The period for which the petitioner had worked, i.e. From 1983 to 1987 shows that the petitioner was not a seasonal worker. This being so, we do not agree with the "finding of the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25N of the Act will not be applicable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions of section 25N of the Act were not complied with at the time of retrenchment. It has also not been shown by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the said provisions were complied with.

In view of the above reasons, we find that the retrenchment was not proper.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Bench rendered in the case of Sukhwinder Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 8868 of 1999, decided on January 17, 2001. Similar view has been taken by us in the said judgment relying on the judgment in the case of Bakshish Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 9395 of 1999.

In view of the above reasons, the award of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside.

Regarding backwages, it is not shown that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period of enforced idleness and therefore, he will be entitled to full back wages in view of the judgment rendered in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ami another 1979 P.L.R. 720.

As a result, this writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

Petition allowed.