OM PARKASH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Om Parkash, petitioner/workman has filed the instant writ petition impugning the award dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar, whereby even though his termination has been held to be bad in law but he has been awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Mr. Anurag Jain, learned counsel appearing for the workman/petitioner would vehemently contend that the findings having been returned by the Labour Court as regards non compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), the relief of reinstatement must follow. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 1 SCT 725; Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation, Sanaur, 2011 3 SCT 139 and Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health, Division No.1, Panipat, 2010 LLR 627. Counsel has also contended that a junior to the petitioner namely Subhash Chander S/o Shri Ram had been retained in service and as such, the principle of "last come first go" had been given a go bye and as such, there was violation of Section 25-G of the Act and on which issue, the Labour Court has not recorded the correct finding. It is further argued that the Presiding Officer has denied the relief of reinstatement on the basis that the workman did not possess the requisite qualification for the post and such reasoning cannot sustain as for non compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, reinstatement could not have been declined on such score. Counsel has also placed heavy reliance upon an additional affidavit dated 26.02.2013 of the Joint Director (Admn.), Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, Haryana, Panchkula, wherein instances have been furnished of a number of Groundmen presently working in the Department of Sports and Youth Affairs, Haryana and who also were illiterate and did not possess the requisite qualification for the post. Counsel would submit that under such admitted fact situation, the petitioner/workman is vested with a right to reinstatement with continuity in service.

(2.) Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner had been engaged as Groundman on daily wages and was being paid as per DC rates. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner seeking regularization in service had been repeatedly rejected by passing specific orders and challenge to the same has not even been accepted by this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed for the post of Groundman under the statutory service rules and as such, the Labour Court has rightfully denied the relief of reinstatement. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) Brief facts would require notice. Petitioner was engaged as Groundman in the Sports and Youth Affairs Department, Haryana w.e.f. 28.02.1991 on wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. His services were terminated on 01.03.1995. Industrial dispute having been raised, a compromise was arrived at with the employer/management and he was taken back on duty upon having agreed to relinquish his claim for backwages. Petitioner filed CWP No.10552 of 2002 praying for issuance of directions to take a decision on his representation dated 11.02.2002, wherein he had claimed the benefit of regularization of his service. Such writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 12.07.2002 with a direction to the department to decide his representation within a period of three months. Vide order dated 24.08.2002, representation of the workman/petitioner was dismissed on the ground that his claim was not covered as per relevant policy/instructions as also on the ground that he did not possess the requisite educational qualifications prescribed for the post which was 8th class pass whereas he was illiterate. Vide order dated 26.08.2002, services of the petitioner were terminated. Petitioner then filed CWP No.15106 of 2002 impugning the order dated 24.08.2002 declining the relief of regularization in service as also the order dated 26.08.2002 whereby his services had been terminated. During the pendency of such writ petition, petitioner was taken back into service. However, vide order dated 19.08.2004, this Court issued directions to consider the claim of the petitioner as regards regularization under the new policy issued by the State Government dated 01.10.2003. Vide order dated 23.11.2004, claim of the petitioner seeking regularization of service was yet again rejected and his services were dispensed with vide order dated 01.12.2004. The petitioner then filed CWP No.19352 of 2004. In such writ petition operation of the order of termination was stayed and directions were issued to the respondent/department to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kanta Gandhi Vs. State of Haryana,1997 4 RSJ 760. Order dated 11.11.2005 was passed by the department rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service yet again on the ground that he does not fulfill the educational qualifications required for the post. Such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.18120 of 2005 and which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.09.2006. Vide order dated 01.02.2007, services of the petitioner were terminated after allegedly complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Even such order of termination dated 01.02.2007 was impugned by the petitioner by filing CWP No.3298 of 2007 and which was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.11.2007 by granting liberty to avail the alternate remedy. Thereafter the petitioner/workman raised an industrial dispute by filing demand notice dated 05.02.2008 and upon conciliation having been failed, matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and which has led to the passing of the impugned award dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-1). Perusal of the award would reveal that a finding of fact has been recorded as regards due compliance of Section 25-F (a) on account of the workman having been paid Rs.2730/- as salary in lieu of notice period.