STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus DES SANDHU

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 15-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
?' 
_,, 
v. 
DES SANDHU 
MARCH 15, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws-Termination-Claim of reinstatement and back wages-
Delay in pursuing the remedy before industrial Forum-Entitlement of claim-
c 
Held: There being delay in filing Reference due to pendency of civil suit and 
~ j 
appeal employer directed to pay Rs. 60,0001- In full and final settlement of 
claim instead of re-instatement-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
~
It was the workmen's case that he was appointed as surveyor on 
15.2.1988. He worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months and 
D was terminated from service without any notice or written order from 
26.3.1989. Assuming that he is still in service, respondent filed civil suit for 
declaration with regard to his continuance in service of employer but the same 
~
f. 
was dismissed. Appeal was also dismissed on 08.02.1997. Respondent then 
.\ 
1-
filed Reference Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to 
reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of 
E termination till actual reinstatement. Appellant-employer filed writ petition. 
Appellants contended that the reference was highly belated; and that since 
the respondent had worked on purely temporary basis for 89 days only 
respondent was not entitled to any relief. High Court dismissed the writ 
~ 
petition. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The alleged order of termination was passed in February, 1989. 
A demand notice was issued in December 1997. The delay was occasioned to 
a considerable extent due to pendency of Civil Suit and the appeal, In view of 
G these peculiar facts, the order passed by the Labour Court as upheld by the 
High Court is modified. Instead ofreinstatement and/or payment of back wages 
for a certain period appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the 
respondent which will be in full and final settlement of the claims of the 
.... 
respondent. (Para 71129-A-Bl 
H 
26 
' 
STATEOFPUNJABv. DES BANDHU[PASAYAT.J.] 
27 
Anil Kumar Puri v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and A 
Anr., (2000) 9 SCC 129, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9042 of2003. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 25 J 0 .2002 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 9503 of2002. 
B 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, (A.C.) Kuldip Singh. R.K. Pandey, Sanjay Katya! 
and Arun K. Sinha, Vinay Mohan Sharma, Ravinder Yadav, Neha Sharma, Dr. 
Vipin Gupta, A.P. Mohanty, Ranbir Yadav, S. Janani and Deepak Goel for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing · 
the writ petition filed by the appellants. In a reference under Section lO(l)(c) D 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'), the Presiding officer, 
Labour Court, Gurdaspur (in short the 'Labour Court') held that the respondent 
was entitJed to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages 
from the date of termination till actual reinstatement. 
2. The case of the workman. as briefly stated in the demand notice dated E 
3 .12.1997 and statement is that he was appointed as surveyor by the concerned 
Superintending Engineer on 15.2.1988 and worked as such for more than 240 
days in 12 calendar months and that he was non-employed without any 
notice/written order from 26.3 .1989 which was dishonest, illegal as it was done 
in contravention of Sections 25-F, N and G of the Act without payment of F 
retrenchment compensation etc. and that juniors to him have been retained 
in service ·and fresh recruitments have also been made after termination of 
service of the workman and that he was getting the pay scale of Rs.400-600 
at the time of termination of his services. It was further pleaded that no 
termination order was given to him. Assuming that he is still in service, he 
filed the Civil Suit on 28.2.1990 for declaration that he is continuing in service G 
of the employer and the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 
23.12.1991 and the appeal dated 17.1.1992 preferred against the said order 
dismissing his suit was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 8.2.1997. 
rt was further pleaded that since 1989, he has been taking action for his 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.