LAL BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3 issues urged for consideration: The issues that stand out for consideration before this Court are the tenability of retrenchment of employment meted out to the workman after a compensation given to the workman by the management in purported compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but was challenged to be inadequate on the ground that he was a 'workman' in an industrial establishment, which was employing more than 100 workmen and the relevant provision which was applicable was Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes, Act. The compensation as contemplated under the latter Section was not paid to him and hence, the termination was stated to be bad. Another ground which was urged on behalf of the workman was that there had been juniors to. him, who had been retained in service while he' was discriminated for a treatment of discharge on the ground that he had been rendered surplus and hence, there had been a violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial. Disputes Act. The last point of contention,' which was urged on behalf of the workman, was what is stated before this Court for the first time namely, that during the pendency of the proceedings, a fresh advertisement had been issued for recruitment to the same post in which' he was employed and therefore, the cause for termination as a workman having been rendered surplus was not any longer available and the management was to re-employ the workman instead of going for fresh recruitment. It was' urged on behalf of the workman that the petitioner had actually filed a writ petition challenging the advertisement but this Court was pleased t dismiss the writ petition granting the liberty to the workman to approach this' Court for appropriate reliefs. The petitioner has, therefore, filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition to consider his case for re-employment even if reinstatement was not possible. II. The disposition before the Labour Court

(2.) The case has had a chequered history. The petitioner had been terminated from service along with a host of others by order dated July 18, 1991 with effect from the following day namely, July 19, 1991. The termination had been challenged by 8 workmen, who had been aggrieved by the order of termination in Civil Writ Petition No. 14161 /1991. The writ petition had been allowed and the respondent-management had preferred L.P.A. No. 822/1992 before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court. The whole focus of argument related to whether the workmen were entitled to the benefit of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and as a consequence whether the respondent was an industrial establishment as defined under Section 25-L of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the provisions of Chapter V-B were applicable to them. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the single Judge, held on August 24, 1993 that there was no prima facie proof of the contention raised on behalf of the workman that it was an industrial establishment. It did not, however, rule also in favour of the management wholly, when it observed that the Bench was not making a final recording of the finding that the Corporation could not be called an industrial establishment. It observed that it was a question of fact which had to be determined on appropriate proceeding after opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence in support of the respective contentions. The Bench held that effective alternative remedy was a reference through an adjudication before the Labour Court and the writ petitioners were given liberty to take proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court through various individual references made through claim statements of the individual workmen. The award impugned was one of the references rejecting the claim made by the workman. The Labour Court found that the workman had not let in any independent evidence after the disposal of the case by the High Court and there was no proof that the respondent management was an industrial establishment to which the provision under Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act would apply. It found that the compensation given to the workman under Section 25-F was sufficient compliance of law and that the workman could not have any remedy before the Labour Court. Adverting to the contentions of the workman that there had been violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H also, the Labour Court held that the cases of other workmen, who were said to have been juniors, had not been concluded and that there were still pending. Making specific reference to one Satyawan alleged to be a junior workman, the Labour Court accepted the contention of the management that the case of Satyawan was still pending and two other persons, who had been said to be juniors namely, Smt. Satya Devi and Smt. Kiran Bala, had been appointed on compassionate grounds being dependents of ex-employees, who died in harness, and hence, they belonged to a different category of workmen and, therefore, the principles under Sections 25-G and 25-H could not be applied. III. Industrial adjudication of another workman as regards the same management - relevant but not binding

(3.) At the forefront of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out to the fact that yet another workman, who had been visited with an order of retrenchment along with the workmen by the same order, had raised a dispute before the Labour Court where the Labour Court had directed reinstatement on a finding that the retrenchment was against industrial rules. The matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the case of Haryana Land Reclamation and Development Corporation Limited v. Nirmal Kumar (20QS)2 SCC 366:2008-I-LLJ-864, the Court had found that the direction for reinstatement as affirmed by the High Court, was not to be disturbed and made a modification only with the issue relating to back wages. The learned counsel appearing for the workman refers to this decision as exhibiting the conduct of the management when they had not denied the status as industrial establishment and the applicability to Section 25-N that was found in favour of the workman. The contentions raised by the management to defeat the claims of the workman in the case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had not been urged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the respondent was, therefore, estopped from taking a different contention with reference to the case of the petitioner alone. The learned counsel also relied on another case with reference to yet another workman namely Ramesh Kumar son of Babu Ram where the Labour Court had already taken a view that it was an industrial establishment and the termination made in violation of Section 25-N was bad. According to him, the management had also reinstated the workman in compliance of the directions of the Labour Court and they ;were not justified in taking up the defence denying the petitioner a right of reinstatement.