DAL BAHADUR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh has awarded reinstatement to the petitioner vide impugned award dated 15th February, 2011 but has denied continuity of service and back wages. The benefits which have been denied, have been justified by the Labour Court on the ground of laches and delay in approaching the management by lodging a claim for reinstatement. The Labour Court has formed an opinion on the ground that the petitioner did not make any representation to the department for his reinstatement and took no steps for the redressal of his grievances before the demand notice dated 20th January, 2006 while his services were terminated on 24th October, 2003 which termination has been affirmed by the Labour Court to be in violation of the mandatory provisions and protections afforded by Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (in short, "the Act").

(2.) IT may be noted that there are two periods of service as a Peon rendered by the petitioner in the office of the Department of Homeopathy, Punjab. The first is from 22nd June, 1995 to 6th August, 1998. The second ran from date of re -employment on 29th April, 1999 and continued till 24th October, 2003. There is no dispute with respect to these two periods.

(3.) THE question which as contended by Mr. Katnoria appearing for the petitioner has serious consequences is that there are/were employees in the same department whose services were regularized in terms of the policy instructions dated 26th May, 2003 of the Punjab Government which were in existence at the time of the illegal termination of the petitioner on 24th October, 2003 who would have had the benefit of those instructions but for his illegal termination. These instructions are on the record of the Labour Court as Ex.M -1. The material issue before the Labour Court was essentially not the result of delay and laches in seeking remedies but one really of whether the petitioner should have been accorded parity of treatment with those whose services were regularized under instructions which were available while he was in service. If there were other employees whose services were regularized on the strength of the instructions dated 26th May, 2003 then in case the petitioner satisfied the conditions of the policy, then he would come to possess a very valuable asset of being declared a regular hand before 1st January, 2004 after which date the pension regime was drastically altered and recruits joining service of Punjab Government after 1st January, 2004 would not be entitled to pension but would be governed by a new fiscal discipline in lieu of service pension. Therefore, the question of denial of continuity of service to the workman becomes a serious issue which should have been examined by the Labour Court.