LAWS(P&H)-2011-11-15

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY Vs. PARVEEN BALA

Decided On November 21, 2011
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY Appellant
V/S
PARVEEN BALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has long been settled in 'Santosh Gupta vs. State Bank of Patiala, 1980 AIR(SC) 1219that retrenchment of a workman on the ground of failure to pass a test as a condition precedent for confirmation or regularization of service, amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Such workman cannot be retrenched without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act that is without notice or payment of retrenchment compensation co-terminus with termination. Even a seasonal worker has a right to protection under the Industrial law. In the present case the Labour Court found that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 calendar months with reference to the date of termination or discharge. After disengaging services of the respondent the University had issued an advertisement for recruitment of Clerks. The respondent was issued call letter. She appeared in the examination. She qualified the written test. However, she was neither re-engaged nor her service regularized on passing of such test. The Labour Court found that in the interregnum the University made a large number of nepotistic appointments through the back door largely at the instance of Sodhi Ram, the then Controller of Examinations, Panjab University. The University is the appellant before us under Clause X of the Letters Patent unabashedly.

(2.) Thereafter, the respondent was engaged to serve again from 20.4.1997 to 30.9.1997 for pressing seasonal work. In the year 1999 there was fresh notice of recruitment by conduct of a written test followed by a type test where the respondent appeared. She passed the written test but could not clear the type test and she continued thus, till she was again disengaged on 30.11.2002 on the plea of non-passing of the type test. A specious plea was taken that she was offered a job of daily wager but she refused it on 17.4.2003. The last disengagement which led to the reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act was without notice or payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Act. The Labour Court by its reasoned award after appreciating the evidence and materials on record ordered reinstatement with 40% back-wages w.e.f. 1.10.2002 till the date of the award, which would carry 9% interest per annum from the date of award i.e. 7.1.2010 till payment.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has upheld the award and endorsed the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in awarding 40% back-wages.