An employee cannot be coerced into waiving statutory rights, especially under duress, as such agreements are void and violate constitutional protections.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. The present petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-12). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner towards regularisation and calculation of pension.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner joined respondent No.3-Municipal Council, Khanna as a Tubewell Operator on 14.09.1992 (Annexure P-2). His services were eventually regularised on 29.12.1994 as he had completed 240 days in service up to 31.10.1993 in terms of instructions dated 19.12.1993 (Annexure P-4). However, on 29.03.1994, the services of the petitioner were terminated without issuing any show cause notice in this regard. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana. Vide award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-5), the learned Tribunal directed that the services of the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. Thereafter, a resolution (Annexure P-6) was passed by the respondent/Council whereby it was agreed that the petitioner be reinstated subject to him furnishing an affidavit claiming that he would not claim any arrears. In order to regain employment, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) to this effect. Accordingly, vide resolution dated 24.09.2011, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment, as discernible from letter dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner moved a representation before respondent No.2- Director, Department of Local Self Government stating that his services w.e.f 23.07.1992 to 25.06.2012 also be counted towards regular service for the purposes of increment and pensionary benefits. However, his claim was denied vide impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-12).

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arbitrarily and illegally terminated on 29.03.1994 without even issuing a show cause notice, in spite of the fact that no inquiry or charge sheet was pending against him. The petitioner remained unemployed for 11 years before his services were reinstated in terms of award dated 28.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ludhiana. Despite a clear stipulation by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner be granted continuity of service and back wages, the respondent/Council refused to reinstate him till he agreed to not claim any arrears. Being a poor person, the petitioner gave into the arm twisting tactics of the respondent/Council and furnished an affidavit dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) in this regard. The petitioner was also bulldozed into joining the respondent/Council as a fresh appointee instead of having his past service counted, even though he was a regular employee before his unceremonious termination.

5. He further contends that it is a matter of record that the respondent/Council did not challenge the award passed by the learned Tribunal and yet, the petitioner was not provided the relief envisaged by it. Since the petitioner is bound to retire in the year 2026, he moved a representation before respondent No.2 to have the services rendered by him before his termination in the year 1994 counted towards regular service for the purpose of calculation of retiral benefits. The respondent/Council has acted in a manner that is whimsical and arbitrary and thereby antithetical to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashe