Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited And Another - Appellant
Vs.
Jasvir Singh And Others - Respondent
CWP-24883-2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Vashisth, J.
This petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of, in terms of detailed observations made in the common judgment of even date, passed separately in CWP No. 24831 of 2023, titled as "Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another v. Joginder and others", and 10 connected cases, including present petition.Sr. No. | Case No. | Case Title | Arising out of Reference No. | Date of award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala | |
Petitioners | Respondents | ||||
01. | CWP-248312023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Joginder and others | 246 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
02. | CWP-248412023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Randhir and others | 257 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
03. | CWP-248772023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Ram Niwas and another | 251 of 2018 | 06.06.2023 |
04. | CWP-248522023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Baljeet @ Matru and others | 241 of 2018 | 07.06.2023 |
05. | CWP-248682023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Vinod and others | 244 of 2018 | 07.06.2023 |
06. | CWP-249192023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Kapil and others | 253 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
07. | CWP-248442023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Hariom and others | 258 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
08. | CWP-248662023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Vikas and others | 281 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
09. | CWP-248492023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Suresh and others | 252 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
10. | CWP-248612023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Rohtas and another | 239 of 2018 | 31.05.2023 |
11. | CWP-248832023 | Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited and another | Jasvir Singh and others | 237 of 2018 | 07.06.2023 |
1. This common judgement shall decide the fate of aforementioned 11 writ petitions, since the facts and law involved in all the writ petitions are similar.
2. All the total 11 petitions have been filed by the petitioners/management, namely, (1) Managing Director, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Panchkula; and (2) District Manager, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Kaithal, challenging the award(s) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala (here-after referred to as the 'Labour Court'), while answering 11 references, on different dates (as depicted in the above table).
After adjudicating the industrial dispute, the Labour Court answered the same in favour of respective workman(s), and ordered for their reinstatement with continuity in service. The Labour Court also awarded 50% back wages as last drawn by the workman(s), from the date of termination till reinstatement, to be paid within 3 months, failing which interest @ 9% on the due amount was ordered to be paid.
3. At the outset, it is apt to notice that in all the 11 cases, pursuant to the demand notice(s), raising industrial dispute by the respective workman(s) before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kaithal, and appearance of the petitioners/management before the said authority, no settlement took place. Subsequently, upon issuance of requisite certificate(s) by the said authority, enabling the workman(s) to approach the Labour Court, for adjudication of the industrial dispute, the workman(s) filed application(s), under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as, 'the 1947 Act'), seeking permission to file the claim petition on the basis of certificate(s) issued by the office of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kaithal. For ready reference, Section 2-A of the 1947 Act, is reproduced as under:-
"2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. -
(1) Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
The earlier ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal was deemed a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the workwoman's claim for reinstatement to be adjudicated afresh.
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition by an outsourced employee against a private entity is not maintainable.
The court affirmed that a transfer of service is a lawful exercise of management's discretion and does not constitute termination unless explicitly stated in the employment contract.
Termination without notice or compensation violates the Industrial Disputes Act; recognition of continuous service applies despite temporary engagement gaps.
The submission of a forged educational document can justify the termination of employment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
