KARAMBIR Vs. HARYAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4th February, 2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge setting aside the award dated 2nd April, 2003 passed by the Labour Court holding that the workman-appellant is entitled to continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 1st August, 1995. The basic reason for the aforesaid view is evident from the impugned order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:

(2.) We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge to set aside the order of reinstatement and back wages, is wholly without merit. A similar controversy has been raised before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192. In the said case, this Court had set aside the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution were not complied with when the workman-Harjinder Singh entered into service. Taking notice of the aforesaid situation, their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment has observed as under :

(3.) When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the aforesaid observations, it is evident that no pleadings, evidence or any argument was raised before the Labour Court by the management-respondent No. 1 to conclude that the initial appointment of the workman appellant was in contravention of the equality clause as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has not kept in view the parameters laid down for exercising certiorari jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR(SC) 477and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 6 SCC 675. Even otherwise we do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the management-respondent to mould the relief other than the relief of re-instatement. It is well settled that reinstatement is the rule whereas refusal is an exception. Such like exception could be where a workman is to work on a post or office of trust and confidence or the post is not in existence etc. No such circumstances have been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the management-respondent No. 1.