STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab has approached this Court by way of present Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside of award dated 7.8.1989 passed by Mrs. Bimla Gautam, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh vide which she ordered the reinstatement of the respondent-workman with continuity of service and also held him entitled to back wages from the date of reference i.e. 19.10.1988 onwards. The brief facts need to be enumerated first:-

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Bhajan Singh was appointed as peon through Employment Exchange against leave vacancy on purely temporary basis on 7.8.1977 in the State Transport Commissioner's office vide orders dated 16.6.1977. He was being adjusted from time to time against the leave vacancy but vide orders dated 25.5.1978, he was again appointed as Chowkidar on purely temporary basis with a condition that his services will be liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason if his work and conduct was found unsatisfactory. Bhajan Singh continued to work as Chowkidar till 9.6.1980 when his services were terminated. As per case of the petitioner, the retrenchment/termination order had to be passed as Bhajan Singh was involved in a theft case registered with the Central Police Station Chandigarh under Sec. 380 Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 451 on 15.5.1980 and he remained in police custody for more than 48 hours. Thereafter he was released on bail. The respondent-workman kept silent for considerable long time and it was for the first time in 1985 that he made an application to the Conciliation Officer. When the petitioner was served with the notice of conciliation proceedings it appeared and filed written reply on 13.11.1985 copy whereof has been placed on the records as Annexure P8. Thereafter, the petitioner did not heard anything in the matter and came to know about the award only when the same was sought to be implemented by respondent No. 1, thus necessitating the petitioner to file the present petition.

(3.) The main case of the petitioner is that it had never received notice on 18.4.1989 stated to have been issued to it in the impugned award and it is only on account of non-receipt of any intimation with regard to any proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 that no appearance could be made in the matter which remained undefended and came to be decided in favour of respondent-workman by proceeding against the petitioner ex parte. However, before approaching this Court, an application was filed before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award. Meanwhile respondent No. 1 also filed an application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for a direction to the petitioner to allow him to join duty and to make him payment of back wages calculated at Rs. 15,410.00. When both the applications were pending, the Labour Court on 16.7.1990 is said to have remarked that after the publication of the award in the Official Gazette, he was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award. On receipt of advice from the Legal Remembrancer and Director Prosecution and Litigation, the petitioner filed the present Writ petition. The award is challenged mainly on the ground that the respondent-workman could not be permitted to initiate the matter by moving an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, Chandigarh after a period of five years from the date of his termination and later seeking a reference under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act after eight years. It is also the case of the petitioner that it never received notice said to have been sent by the Labour Court and ex parte proceedings conducted against the petitioner were wholly illegal.