AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Briefly stated, Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Artificial Insemination Assistant at Milkfed Project, Faridkot vide appointment letter dated 1.8.1984, Annexure P1, purely on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days. In terms of the appointment letter, upon the expiry of 89 days, his services were to stand automatically terminated. Accordingly, after the initial term of 89 days, the petitioner was re-engaged on 89 days'' basis over a certain period of time. His services having been terminated, respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute and a settlement was entered into on 27.10.1986 before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer between the petitioner-Management and respondent No. 2 in the light of which he was re-engaged in service. Services of respondent No. 2 were thereafter terminated on 24.4.1988. Such termination of service of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 24.4.1988 has been held to be bad in law by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda vide award dated 17.6.1992, Annexure P10, and he has been held entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. 18.7.1988 i.e. the date of the demand notice. Further directions have been issued by the Labour Court that in case there is no post of Artificial Insemination Assistant, then the Management would accommodate the workman/respondent No. 2 on some other post of equivalent grade.
It is towards impugning such Labour Court award dated 17.6.1992 that the instant writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the impugned award dated 17.6.1992, Annexure P10, cannot sustain as there was no regular post of Artificial Insemination Assistant against which respondent No. 2 could have been adjusted, and for that matter even the regular incumbents on the post of Artificial Insemination Assistant had been declared surplus. It has been argued that once the post in question itself stands abolished, no directions could have been issued as regards the re-instatement of respondent No. 2. It has also been argued that the Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence led on record and has completely overlooked the letter dated 17.3.1988, Annexure P6, in terms of which respondent No. 2 had been issued one month''s notice and called upon to collect one month''s pay as compensation.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the award dated 17.6.1992 at Annexure P2 is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. Reliance has been placed upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in President, Zila Parishad, Panipat Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and Zila Parishad, Ferozepur Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda to contend that the petitioner-Management has resorted to an unfair labour practice of having engaged the workman repeatedly on 89 days basis and as such, the decision of the Labour Court in having held the termination of respondent No. 2 to be bad in law and having directed reinstatement with continuity in service would be a valid order. That apart, learned counsel has also submitted that the issue as regards the post of Artificial Insemination Assistant having been abolished and there being no such regular post was a plea that was being raised for the first time before the writ Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.
It would be apposite to notice that while issuing notice of motion in the present writ petition on 21.4.1993, a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the operation of the impugned award subject to provisions of Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Clearly, workman-respondent No. 2 has been enjoying the payment of the last drawn salary on account of the pendency of the instant writ petition before this Court since the year 1993.
A perusal of the impugned award dated 17.6.1992, Annexure P10, would make it apparent that the Labour Court has primarily held the termination of respondent No. 2 to be unjustified on the ground that it is in dis-regard of the settlement dated 27.10.1986 having been arrived at between the parties before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Such settlement reads in the following terms:
It has been settled that the workman (Harbans Singh) would be re-appointed on adhoc basis for the time being as Artificial Insemination Assistant on 28.10.1986 and he would continue as such till there is a regular post, he would be given preference.
Clearly, the settlement dated 27.10.1986 proceeded on the basis of existence and availability of a regular post of Artificial Insemination Assessment. Upon the post in question having ceased to exist, the settlement dated 27.10.1986 could not continue to operate to the advantage of respondent No. 2. The Labour Court has clearly mis-read and mis-construed such settlement.
It is by now well settled that upon abolition of a post, the holder of such post ceases to have any right to continue in service and there would be no requirement of even holding any enquiry before dispensing with services of such employee. These are matters which are within the competence and domain of the Executive/State Government. Such decisions would be in the nature of policy decisions based upon relevant para-meters in the nature of assessment of work load, staff requirement, financial constraints etc. Judicial review in regard thereto would only be limited to situations where the decision is patently illegal and vitiated by malafides. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in 1996 II AD 238 (SC) , State of Haryana and Others Vs. Navneet Verma, and Bachi Ram Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .
The submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that the plea as regards there being no post of Artificial Insemination Assistant having been raised for the first time before the writ Court is factually incorrect. In the impugned order itself, while issuing directions to the Management to accommodate the workman on some other post of equivalent grade, the Labour court has clearly recited to the following effect:
...However it is made clear that in case there is no post of Artificial Insemination Assistant in fact as pleaded by representative of the management....
Clearly, such plea and factual position had been brought to the notice of the Labour Court by the petitioner-Management, yet the same has not been dealt with as per settled principles of law.
Even otherwise, the reference before the Labour Court was with regard to the termination of services of the workman/respondent No. 2 being valid or not. This Court is of the considered view that the Labour Court in the impugned award dated 17.6.1992 has clearly acted beyond its jurisdiction in having issued directions to the petitioner-Management to accommodate the workman/respondent No. 2 on any other post of an equivalent grade.
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 17.6.1992, Annexure P10, is quashed. Writ petition allowed.