SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the wife and children of one Harjit Singh, who worked as Helper in the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot. The services of Harjit Singh were terminated on 31.3.1983. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its award dated 1st of June, 1993 directed the reinstatement of the workman Harjit Singh with continuity of service, but denied back wages. This Court in CWP No. 14179 of 1993 allowed the relief of back wages to the workman. The workman died on 9.10.1993. The petitioners contended that the Labour Court directed the reinstatment of the workman with continuity of service, he should be deemed to be in service till his death and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the family pension and employment of the Ist petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) In the written statement, it is stated that the workman was employed on ad hoc basis and there was no post of Helper and as the services of the workman were not regularised, the petitioners are not entitled to family pension. It is further stated that the policy of the Government dated 7.5.1993 for regularisation of services of ad hoc employees is not applicable to the petitioners as there was no regular post of Helper available and also on the ground that the workman Harjit Singh was not in service.

(3.) There is no denial of the fact that the Government issued instructions dated 7.5.1993 providing for regularisation of ad hoc/work charged/casual/daily wage employees. The workman Harjit Singh was alive when these instructions were issued. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not in service is devoid of any merit. The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service. That award has become final. In fact, this Court granted back wages also to the workman though the said relief was declined by the Labour Court. Thus in view of the award passed by the Labour Court, the workman was deemed to have been in service from the date of his termination i.e. 31.3.1983 till his death on 9.10.1993. Thus when the instructions dated 7.5.1993 were issued, Harjit Singh, husband of the Ist petitioner was deemed to have been in service and he was entitled to have his services regularised under the policy instructions. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that Harjit Singh workman was entitled to be regularised under the policy decision dated 7.5.1993 and, therefore, the wife of the workman namely the Ist petitioner is entitled to family pension in accordance with the rules governing the same.