CWP No. 15709/2011. Case: Damyanti (Smt.) Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Anr.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 15709/2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. Abha Rathore, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Add. A.G. Haryana. |
| Judges | Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 226, 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1)(c), 2(s), 25-F(a), 25B, 25F, 25G |
| Citation | 2012 (134) FLR 832, 2012 LLR 833 |
| Judgement Date | March 28, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
-
This petition filed by the workman under Articles 226/227 of the constitution is directed against the award dated 14.1.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Panipat answering the reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") against the workman and in favour of the Management. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Gardener with the respondent No. 2-Management in 1986 and served upto 27.3.2001. The petitioner pleads that she and other gardeners working in different Districts had raised demands for regularization of their services. She too had voiced her concern. Instead of regularizing her services, she was dealt with a termination order on 27.3.2001. On the matter having reached the Labour Court, the Management took its defence that the employer Forest department was not an industry; the claimant was a seasonal worker on daily wages; that she had not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year from the date of termination. The Labour Court returned a finding that the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act. The Labour Court thereafter veered and derailed the matter by observing that the petitioner was admittedly engaged as a daily wager; she was not engaged by the respondent-Management as per norms and procedure as laid down for making such appointment. Several decisions were relied upon including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1 to hold that the petitioner has no right to claim the post, and thus she has no right to reinstatement, despite non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
2.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court finds that the issue before the Labour Court as referred to it was with regard to the legality and validity of the termination of the services of the petitioner. The workman did not claim regularization either before the Labour Court or before this Court. The workman sought reinstatement. In case of reinstatement, she would obviously go back to the same position as held by her on the date of termination.
-
A sea change has been brought about by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SC...
To continue reading
Request your trial