PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE & TAXATION, PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BATHINDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The period of service spent by the respondent Sewadar in this case is too brief to award reinstatement. The total length of service put in by the 2 nd respondent, Arvan Kumar, as a Sewadar in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Muktsar, Punjab, on purely temporary basis at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act and extended from time to time, is from 01.04.1999 to 28.02.2001. It comes to about 1 year and 9 months. It is urged by petitioner that reinstatement should not be awarded mechanically in a case of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and many factors would need to be considered in moulding the relief.

(2.) The State Government is before this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the award dated 19.03.2012 (P-7) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda. The termination order has been set aside. Reinstatement has been ordered with continuity of service with 50% back wages.

(3.) There is no doubt that the findings have been returned that Section 25-F of the Act was violated. The Labour Court has applied the law laid down in Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 6 SCC 584 to grant relief. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh,2013 STPL 84, the Supreme Court has explained the legal position in case of violation of Section 25-F of the Act and its impact on relief which can be granted after noticing its earlier decisions in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192 and Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 6 SCC 584. From the appointment orders issued to the respondent by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Muktsar, it bears out that the 2 nd respondent, Arvan Kumar, was appointed as Sewadar and was paid out of contingency funds at DC rates and not through the public exchequer to regular or temporary employees holding cadre posts the salary for which is appropriated by the State legislature in budgets passed. The approval of engagement on contingency funds was to expire on 28.02.2000 with no promise of extension. A similar order was passed on 05.04.2000 to continue the contingency appointment from 01.03.2000 till 30.09.2000 with no further expectation of continuance. The last order was passed on 29.09.2000 in the same contingency arrangement up to 30.09.2009 by extending services up to 28.02.2001. On dis-engagement, the industrial dispute was raised, which has been adjudicated by the Labour Court. The award was announced on 19.03.2012.