IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Health & Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Gurjit Singh & Anr. – Respondents
CWP-17330 of 2004
Decided On : 09-05-2024
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)
Petitioners i.e. (i) Health & Family Department, Punjab, Chandigarh through Director Health Services; (ii) Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Mansa, and; (iii) Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre (PHC) Budhlada, District Mansa, being Management, have filed the present writ petition, challenging the award dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2 - learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, whereby, Ref. No.1/2002, under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of respondent No.1 - Gurjit Singh (workman).
2. Pleaded case of the workman is that he was employed with the Management as Class-IV employee w.e.f. 13.03.1995, and was terminated on 10.06.1995. He was drawing the wages of Rs. 1750/- per month. His services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, notice pay or retrenchment notice etc. Even after his termination, the other workmen, who were junior to him, namely; Sukhchain Singh, Kuljit Kaur and Major Singh, are still in service of the Management. Thus, there being violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the ID Act, and termination of his services were prayed to be illegal. Workman prayed for reinstatement in service.
3. On the other hand, Management pleaded that the named workman services were terminated as per the rules and regulations of the Health Department. He was appointed as 'Class-IV' employee purely on temporary basis, for a period of 89 days in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-1350/- p.m. Management admitted that no notice, charge-sheet, notice pay or retrenchment notice was ever served to the workman. Thus, while defending the action of termination, Management relied upon the order of appointment, by stating that it was on temporary basis since its beginning.
Learned Labour Court, vide order dated 29.08.2002, framed the following issues:-
4. For the purpose of issue No.1 - Dr. Shard Kumar, appeared as MW/1 and proved the appointment of the workman on temporary basis by producing the appointment letter as Ex.M1, and the joining report dated 14.03.1995 submitted at Budhlada, as Ex.M/2. The termination letter dated 10.06.1995 (Ex.M3) was also proved by the said witnesses.
5. On the other side, workman himself appeared as WW/1 and produced another witness - Harbans Kaur as WW/2, who proved the list of Class-IV employees (Ex.W/2) showing the date of appointment of said employees, and stated that said employees are still in service. Not only this, services of such workmen, have already been regularized as per the order of the Punjab Government. Said fact has been admitted by Dr. Prem Nath (WW/3) also by taking note of the other relevant documents and more importantantly, the fact that as per the list (Ex.W/2) produced before the learned Labour Court, other employees (workmen), who were junior to the workman, have been retained in service.
The findings recorded by learned Labour Court, in paragraphs No.12, 13, 14 & 15, are reproduced as under:-
Termination of employment without notice violates Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The central legal point established is that termination of services must comply with Section 25-F of the ID Act, and reinstatement may not automatically follow a finding of illegality.
Termination of service without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act, establishing the workman's right to reinstatement and compensation.
The court upheld the Labour Court's decision to reinstate the workman, emphasizing the violation of statutory provisions and the need for social justice in labor relations.
The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the workman abandoned his employment rather than being wrongfully terminated, due to insufficient evidence supporting his claims.
The court held that the termination of the workman violated Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the appointment of another worker after his removal.
Termination of a workman without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is invalid, necessitating reinstatement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.