Sukhwinder Singh vs Punjab State Civil Supplies corporation Ltd.

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Copy of letter dated December 17, 1996 giving appointment to 29 days and the reply of the petitioner thereto dated December 17, 1996 is placed on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent- Industry is having more than 1000 workmen and their retrenchment, if any, should have been made u/s 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Retrenchment is made in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. The petitioner was in service as a daily wage worker from March 1, 1980 to December 12, 1987. Therefore, he had worked for more than one year.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the copy of the statement which has been produced as Annexure P-10. In the said statement, the petitioner has stated that the strength of the employees under respondent-employer was more than 100 throughout. Annexure P-9 is the copy of cross- examination of the workman. This statement of the workman is not challenged in the cross-examination. Annexure P-2 is the statement of the claim and in paragraph 1, it has been stated that the establishment of the respondent has employed over 1000 workmen. Reply thereto produced before the Labour Court is at Annexure P-3. This statement is not denied in the reply.

It is clear that the provisions of Section 25N of the Act have not been complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment in the case of Bakhshish Singh v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and another (Civil Writ Petition No. 9395 of 1999). In one of the paragraph at page 5 of the judgment, it has been observed as under :-

"The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to support the award of the Labour Court which is against the facts brought on record. He has also not been able to advance any meaningful arguments in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. A plain reading of the provisions of the Act belie the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act had been made. It is admitted case that no compliance of the provisions of chapter V-B had been made despite the fact that the said chapter is applicable to the facts noticed by the Labour Court and which have been otherwise discernible from the evidence brought on record."

In view of the above reasons, we find that the termination of the petitioner was not in accordance with law, and therefore, it has to be set aside.

Regarding the question of back wages, the contention of the petitioner''s counsel is that he was not gainfully employed. However, a letter of the management produced today, i.e., dated December 17, 1996, offering him employment to 29 days basis shows that the petitioner was offered employment for the said period which he did not accept because he wanted to have a minimum equal pay of the basis pay as paid to regular and temporary watchmen. Therefore, back wages shall be restricted from the date of demand notice till December 7, 1996 only.

As a result, this petition is partly allowed. Termination of the petitioner is quashed and he is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages upto December 17, 1996.

This order will be carried out within a period of two months from today.

Petition partly allowed.