GURMAIL SINGH Vs. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioning workman challenging the award dated 21st February, 2007 passed by the labour court.

(2.) IT is trite law that where the termination is in gross violation of the Section 25 -F of the Act, a workman cannot be denied reinstatement by normal circumstances. Cf. Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010 5 SCC 497 and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192 where the principles of Section 25 -F have been extended to Section 25 -G of the Act, the binding opinion of the Supreme Court based on violation of both the procedural laws as conditions precedent to valid termination. One may also see the Division Bench decision of this Court in The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula and another v. Ram Karan and another,2012 4 SCT 645 where numerous pronouncements of the Supreme Court have been noticed including PGIMER v. Raj Kumar, 2001 2 SCC 54. More recently, the Supreme Court have applied the principle on January 13, 2015 in Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana and another in Civil Appeal No.3456 of 2015 arising out of SLP No.1532 of 2014 relying on the principles laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors., 2013 10 SCC 324 where it was observed : -

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court is not found sustainable in law and is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner is reinstated to service. However, the petitioner is denied back wages from the date of the award, i.e., January 21, 2007 till July 11, 2013, the date of first hearing on the petition as this period should not work unjustly to the monetary disadvantage of the management on the principle of 'no fault' of theirs but that would not be ground to deny back wages from September, 2001 i.e. the date of illegal termination till the date of award and running again after July, 2013 for which periods the workman is held entitled to 50% back wages. This, to my mind, would secure a proper balance between the competing interests of both the parties. However, the period of hibernation of the petition for 6 years will be treated as dies -non for all intents and purposes.