VIRNARPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of four Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2505, 2200, 2207 and 2298 of 1984 as common questions of law and fact have arisen in all the four writ petitions.

(2.) FIRST of all I would like to take the facts from C. W. P. No. 2505 of 1984 (Virnarpinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.), and in this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award (Annexure P-l) and have prayed for issuance of direction that they be reinstated in service with full backwages. The case set up by the petitioners is that they worked as workmen with respondent No. 3, The Doraha Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. , Doraha, District Ludhiana (for short 'the Society'), on regular basis since 1973 and their services were terminated on 30. 11. 1979 without payment of any notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Since they were drawing more than Rs. 250.00 per month, their services could not be terminated without taking prior approval of the Registrar under Rule 36 of the Bye-laws of the Society/they served a demand notice upon the Society (respondent No. 3), which refused to accept their demands. After the failure of conciliation proceedings, respondent No. 1 referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). The impugned award (Annexure P-l) was passed on 11. 4. 1984 and it was held that though the termination of the petitioners was illegal, yet they are not entitled to full back-wages. The Labour Court, on the contrary, ordered for the payment of retrenchment compensation only. The award has been attacked by the petitioners on the ground that once their termination from services amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act, the labour Court was duty bound and was under obligation to order the reinstatement of the petitioners into service with benefit of continuity of service and full backwages and by not doing so, the Labour Court has committed the illegality.

(3.) IN other three writ petitions, i. e. C. W. P. No. 2200 of 1984, C. W. P. No. 2207 of 1984 and C. W. P. No. 2298 of 1984, the petitioners were employees of the Punjab State Small Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short the Corporation)) and they have filed separate writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the quashment of the respective awards to the extent that they be reinstated into service with benefit of continuity of service with full backwages. The case of the petitioners in these three writ petitions is common and for the purpose of facts I am referring to the facts of C. W. P. No. 2200 of 1984, in which it has been alleged that the petitioners worked as workmen with the Government Hosiery Work Centre, Industrial Area-B, Ludhiana, which is under the control of respondent No. 4, on regular basis and their deductions were made towards General Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance. They had rendered services of not less than five years with respondent No. 3 but their services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry. Upon this they served a demand notice upon respondent No. 3, which refused to accept their demands for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. After the failure report, respondent No. 1 referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court Under Section 10 of the Act and vide separate awards the Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioners was illegal and unjustified. Instead of awarding reinstatement into service and full back wages with benefit of continuity of service, the Labour Court granted some compensation to the petitioners for their illegal termination of services. The award of the Labour Court has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that once it is held by the Labour Court that the termination of the services of the petitioners amounted to retrenchment, it was duty bound to reinstate the petitioners into service with full back wages and continuity of service and by not doing so, the Labour Court had committed a great illegality, which should be rectified by issuing necessary directions in the present writ petitions.