State of Punjab vs Harmesh Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Award dated 20.06.1989 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and issuance of writ of certiorari. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the instant petition are to the effect that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Class-IV employee on temporary basis for the period of 89 days in the ESI Dispensary, Railmajra, District Hoshiarpur vide letter dated 17.1.1984. His services were extended from time to time for 89 days and he served the petitioner as such up to 18th January, 1987. After the expiry of 89 days, services of respondent no. 1 stood automatically terminated. For the same post, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Jarnail Singh applied along with respondent no. 1 for their appointment as Class IV at ESI Dispensary, Railmajra. There were only two posts sanctioned as Class IV. In the public interest to cope with the public services, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Jarnail Singh, both were selected and appointed against two sanctioned posts. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 approached the Labour Commissioner Punjab and conciliation proceedings were held and thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, u/s 10(I)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petitioner filed reply to the petition of respondent no. 1. In reply, the stand of petitioner is that respondent no. 1 had been appointed for 89 days in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430 and he had been given fresh appointment on receipt of his fresh requests and in that manner he served the petitioner till 18th of January, 1987, but with breaks. The respondent no. 1 was not in the continuous service of the petitioner and his services stood automatically terminated on the expiry of the period stipulated in the appointment letter. It was also averred that respondent no. 1 was not appointed as he was less qualified as compared to Rajinder Kumar and Jarnail Singh, subsequently appointed as Class-IV employees.

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

The main question which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether relief of reinstatement and continuity of service with half back wages from 21st September, 1987 till reinstatement to respondent no. 1 granted vide impugned Award (Annexure P-15) is sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no. 1 was merely a temporary employee and his services were terminated in accordance with the appointment letter. The learned counsel has further contended that respondent no. 1 did not complete 240 days of continuous service so as to entitle him to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and half backwages. The learned counsel has further contended that the Labour Court cannot reinstate a Govt. employee who was merely temporary employee of the ESI Dispensary. The learned counsel has further contended that the impugned Award (Annexure P-15) is against law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have no hesitation in holding that services of respondent no. 1 were purely on temporary basis. This is admitted case of respondent no. 1 himself that he had joined the service for 89 days w.e.f. February, 1984 and later on, his services were extended from time to time, however, his services were terminated on 18.1.1987 without holding any enquiry against him.

In the face of these circumstances, respondent no. 1 was not entitled to continue after 18.1.1987, so the question of his reinstatement into service does not arise specifically after 18.1.987.

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, ; 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 respondent no. 1 joined service as Class IV employee in the pay scale of Rs. 300-430/- for 89 days about 29 years back and had worked from February, 1984 to 18.1.1987 with notional breaks.

In view of the settled proposition of law by the Apex Court, relief of reinstatement and back wages to respondent no. 1 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. 1,50,000/- to respondent no. 1-workman shall meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly. Such payment shall be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of Award.

Copy of this order be sent to respondent no. 1 compliance. The appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.