Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Raj Rani and Another – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19990, 20155, 20184, 20193, 20629, 20630, 21971, 22015, 22021, 22030, 22238, 23449 of 2012, 15474, 15483, 15496, 17418 of 2011
Decided On : 16-10-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajesh Arora, J.S. Cooner, Ajay Kumar, A.P. Bhandari, Surinder Kumar Daaria, M.S. Sindhu.
For the Respondents: Rajesh Arora, Rajinder S. Rana, Ramesh Hooda, Naveen Daryal, Surinder Kumar Daaria, M.S. Sindhu.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with statutory regulations, non-discrimination in employment matters, and the entitlement to benefits and regularisation of services for workers. The judgment emphasizes the duty of the Constitutional Court to ensure fairness and equality in employment disputes.
Headnote:
Labour Court Award - Termination of Services - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - University's Outsourcing Policy - Regularisation of Services - Discrimination - Continuity of Service
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the termination of services of a worker employed by a university, and the subsequent dispute regarding the nature of her employment, termination, and entitlement to benefits. The worker's services were terminated, leading to conciliation proceedings and a reference to the Labour Court. The University contested the case, arguing that the worker was engaged through a contractor and was not entitled to the benefits claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court held that the worker and others were direct appointees, and their termination was illegal for want of compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages, rejecting the University's arguments regarding the outsourcing policy and compliance with regulations.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the worker's employment, compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the validity of the outsourcing policy, and the entitlement to benefits and regularisation of services.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the worker was a direct employee, and her termination was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Act. The Court also highlighted the discriminatory treatment of the worker and others similarly situated, emphasizing the principles of fairness and non-discrimination in employment matters.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the Labour Court's award, directing the University to consider the cases of the workers for regularisation on reinstatement, taking into account the continuity of service granted by the Labour Court. The Court resolved the conflict between the awards, ensuring equal treatment of all workers and addressing the issue of unfair discrimination.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. This order will dispose of the aforesaid 17 writ petitions. By consent, the main case in the set of cases filed by the Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University is CWP No. 19990 of 2012 titled Vice Chancellor vs. Raj Rani and Another.
2. The workman and the Kurukshetra University are both aggrieved against the award dated 27th April, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and have approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction assailing the impugned award in different ways as below.
3. The writ petition has been filed by Mr. Mahabir Singh Sindhu, Advocate for the University. The award is defended by a host of the learned counsel.
4. The brief facts are that Raj Rani respondent No. 1-workman was employed as a casual labourer on daily wages on 2nd February, 2001. Her services were terminated on which she raised the dispute with the management. The matter went in conciliation proceedings which failed. The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Kurukshetra submitted his failure report recording reasons why the dispute could not be settled amongst the parties. The appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute regarding termination to the Labour Court, Ambala where the proceedings were held. The University contested the case and filed its statement of claim. Parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence on record.
5. The admitted position was that the engagements had been effected without appointment orders nor was the termination made in writing.
6. The stand of the University was that Raj Rani and the other workmen in the connected cases were engaged through a contractor engaged by University through its outsourcing policy of keeping the University campus clean through contractual sweepers. There was other work also which brought Peons, Baildars etc. to serve the University through contractors. The University denied direct relationship with the employees. These 17 cases concern Class-IV employment.
7. The Labour Court has disagreed with the stand of the University and held Raj Rani and others to be direct appointees. It has held the termination to be illegal for want of compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [in short "the Act"] and has awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The University argues that the workmen were never appointed against regular posts. As in the very nature of things, they came through outsourcing policy and their services cannot be thrust upon the University on a permanent basis. The University says that the award has virtually granted undue benefit to respondent No. 1 and others similarly situated. The outsourcing policy has been adopted on a fiat of the State Government which has deep and pervasive control over the functioning of the Kurukshetra University. The outsourcing policy was adopted on 1st September, 2006. Therefore, the engagement of respondent No. 1 etc. is not against the budged posts which do not exist and she cannot, therefore, stake her claim based on direct relationship of employment between the University and her. It is not disputed that Raj Rani served a demand notice dated 9th February, 2009 on the University, upon which, the conciliation proceedings were attempted but brought no fruit necessitating adjudication of the disputes.
8. On merits, the University defended by pleading that Raj Rani had not completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted service in a calendar year preceding the date of alleged termination.
9. It is remarkable that in case of five workmen, i.e. Kuber, Ram Rattan, Narender Saini, Rajesh Sharma and Nanu Ram in reference nos. 97, 92, 96, 250, 252 of 2008 respectively; the Labour Court dismissed the claim of the workmen and declined the reference. These five are in Court assailing the awards of the successor Labour Court accepting the reference claiming parity of treatment in terms of relief with those who have remained successful before the same Labo
