Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Jasvir Singh

Jasbir Singh, J.

Civil Misc. No. 1267-LPA of 2014

In view of averments made in this application, the same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 525 of 2014

This appeal has been filed against an order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 16438 of 2002 filed by respondent No. 1-Jasvir Singh. Vide the judgment under challenge, the appellant was directed to make payment of salary and allowances to respondent No. 1 for the period between 2002 to 2008. A specific finding has been given that during this period, respondent No. 1 was not allowed to join his duties on account of some dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2.

As per facts on record, appointment of respondent No. 1 as Granthi was approved by the appellant on 31.7.1985. He was posted as such in Gurdwara Sahib, Pucca Kalan, Bathinda. Thereafter, he was transferred from one place to another as per the provisions of Section 87 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. On 9.11.2000, he was posted in a religious place at Kot Shamir, District Bathinda. It is not in dispute that transfer orders from time to time were issued by the appellant. Respondent No. 1 was confirmed in service in the year 2001. He was relieved on 17.6.2002 and was directed to join the appellant. The appellant did not allow respondent No. 1 to join its office when he reported for duties. The appellant wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 to allow respondent No. 1 to join duties at Kot Shamir. Respondent No. 1 went there but he was not allowed to join his duties. Despite representations made, when no action was taken, respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing the above said writ petition.

We have heard counsel for the appellant who has argued that in the writ petition, as no relief was claimed against the appellant so the appellant cannot be burdened with any liability to make payment of dues to respondent No. 1. We have gone through the paper-book. The learned Single Judge has rightly came to a conclusion that the appointment of respondent No. 1 against the post of Granthi was approved by the appellant. It is also not in dispute that after his initial appointment at Pucca Kalan, respondent No. 1 was transferred under the orders passed by the appellant. It is not in dispute that in the year 2008, the respondent No. 1 joined in the office of the appellant and at present he is serving there.

In view of above, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that infact appellant is the employer of respondent No. 1 is perfectly justified. The learned Single Judge, when giving finding against the appellant, has observed as under:-

Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has tried to wash off its responsibility altogether by stating that the petitioner was never employed by them and he was employed by respondent No. 2. There is on record Annexure R-2 which somewhat indicates an employment given to the petitioner by Gurudwara Sahib Jandsar Sahib, Pacca Kalan regarding which approval was granted by respondent No. 1 as is evident from Annexure P-1. Annexure P-2 indicates the grant of pay scale to the petitioner, while Annexure P-3 indicates confirmation of the services of the petitioner. By virtue of Annexure P-4, the petitioner was relieved of his duties to enable him to join the office of Shiromani Committee.

It is from here onwards that the travails of the petitioner started as he was not permitted to join the office of the Shromani Committee on the ground that he was an employee of the Local Committee, whereas the Local Committee continued to insist that the petitioner is an employee of the S.G.P.C.

During the pendency of the petition, the S.G.P.C. relented and the petitioner was taken into service where he has been performing his duties since 2008 and he has now been promoted as Manager of the Gurudwara.

The grievance of the petitioner is now limited only to the release of his pay and other emoluments for the period he remained out of service and was not allowed to join his duties i.e. with effect from 17.6.2002 to 22.7.2008 when his services were absorbed by the S.G.P.C.

There is no justification forthcoming from the respondents except the stand taken by them in their respective replies which centre around the denial of the fact that the petitioner is an employee of the S.G.P.C., which is controverted by respondent No. 1 to say that the petitioner is an employee of respondent No. 2.

The Court is of the considered opinion that if the facts of the case are to be evaluated, then there is hardly any room for doubt that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the internecine disputes between respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner has unjustly been deprived of his right to perform his duties because of this dispute inter-se between respondents 1 and 2. The fact that the petitioner has been absorbed by the S.G.P.C. would itself indicate that the petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 1 more particularly when this fact is admitted by respondent No. 2. There are also documents to show that the petitioner was transferred from Gurudwara Sahib Jandsar Sahib, Pacca Kalan to respondent No. 2 and on a pointed query by this Court as to who granted the approval for transfer from one Gurudwara to another, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 could not evade his responsibility and he candidly had to admit that the S.G.P.C. is the body authorized to transfer a Granthi from one Gurudwara to another.

If that be so, then it indicates sufficient control by respondent No. 1 of the service of the petitioner. It has thus, been construed that for all intents and purposes, the petitioner is an employee of the S.G.P.C. and therefore, when he has been unjustly debarred from performing his duties on account of the internal squabbles between the respondents, he cannot be deprived of his legitimate rights.

In view of the above facts, we feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Appointment of respondent No. 1 was made after according approval by the appellant and he was transferred from one place to another under its orders. If that is so, the appellant cannot revert back and say that respondent No. 1 was not its employee.

No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal.

Dismissed.