LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus ANIL KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF PUNJAB I v. ANILKUMAR APRIL 25, 2007 B [DR. ARIIlT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Labour Laws: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: c Reinstatement in service-Back Wages-Workman engaged on daily wages-Termination of services-Demand for reference raised after 13 years- - Award of reinstatement with 40% back wages by Labour Court-High Court declining to interfere-Held: Since High Court has recorded a finding that workman had worked for 240 days, order of reinstatement is maintained- D However, as Labour Court was approached after 13 years, direction for payment of back wages is set aside-Delay/Laches. Respondent was engaged on daily wages in the Roadways of the appellant- State for specific periods, from time to time between 6.2.1981and30.9.1985. E Thereafter he was not engaged. The respondent filed two civil suits, one after the other, claiming continuation in the service. However, both the suits were withdrawn by him at the appellate stage. Thereafter, a demand notice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being served on the appellant on 20.9.1998, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which passed an award dated 12.11.2003 directing reinstatement of the respondent with 40% back wages F from 20.9.1998. The respondent joined duties on 1.4.2005. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court observing that the workman had worked for more than 240 days before termination of his services. In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, it was contended G that since the respondent was engaged for fixed period, reinstatement could not have been directed; and that the demand for reference was belatedly made )< after 13 years. Allowing the appea~ the Court H 650 STATE OF PUNJABv. ANIL KUMAR [PASAYAT,J.] 651 HELD: In view of the factual position, there is no infirmity in the order A passed by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court so far as entitlement of the respondent-workman to be re-instated is concerned. At the same time the fact that there was belated approach cannot be lost sight of. Admittedly, the Labour Court was moved after 13 years. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the direction for payment of back wages is set aside. (Paras 11and14] (652-G-H; 653-A-C] B i CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2139 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 6927 of2005. c R.K. Rathore, M.K. Verma and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Ranbir Singh Yadav and Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D - ~ DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. l. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Pun jab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. E 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent was engaged in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot on daily-wage basis with effect from 6.2.1981. He was engaged on such basis in the Jalandhar Depot No. 2 from 15.9.1981 to 27.12.1981. Again, he was engaged on daily-wage basis in Punjab Roadways, Moga from 16.2.1983 to F 30.9.1985. Such engagements were for specific periods. As there was no work for the respondent in Punjab Roadways, Moga, he was not engaged after 30.9.1985. - 4. Respondent filed civil suit in the Civil Court at Jalandhar claiming that -" he was in continuous service. The learned Civil Court decreed the suit holding G that the respondent was deemed to be an employee of appellant and he is entitled to back wages from the date of institution of the suit. 5. An appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar by the appellant. The suit was withdrawn by the respondent and as such the judgment H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. and decree dated 9.2.1991 lost their force. On 9.5.1994 respondent again filed .1 A a Civil Suit for declaration that his service in Punjab Roadways stood regularized since 5.2.1981. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) on 12.10.1996. Respondent filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar. The said appeal was again withdrawn on 17.9.1998. B 6. A demand notice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was served on the appellant on 29.9.1998 by the respondent. The matter was re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.