TAURU PRIMARY COOP LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD TAURU, DISTRICT GURGAON (HARYANA) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order directing reinstatement in service of the workman, who the management claimed was not a regular appointee and the direction for reinstatement itself was wrong, for the workman had merely the benefit of an order of stay from a Civil Court for continuance of services to report that he had completed 240 days of service.

(2.) Although, I had allowed the counsel to open the case on merits, learned counsel for the workman intercepted to contend that there had been a direction made already by this Court on 19.01.2001 when an undertaking was given by the petitioner that the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act will be periodically deposited in account of a bank opened by the workman. The contention of the workman was that after a bank account was opened and informed to the management, the petitioner had made the payment only upto 19.01.2001. Relying on a decision of Bombay High Court in Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Nagpur and others v. P.W.D. S.C., S.T., O.B.C., Employees Council and another, 1995 LabIC 143, the learned counsel contended that the language of Section 17-B being peremptory, the non-compliance would entail dismissal of the writ petition. The provisions under Section 17-B is itself only to even the scale of justice and to prevent indigency of the workman to weigh against him to effectively enter a contest in Court where the management with all its means could play truant with a workman and deny to him what was otherwise legitimately due to him. When the reason for non-compliance is put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel would respond with two justifications; one, the bank itself had transferred its operations to the Apex Bank even in the year 1995 and on her application, Apex Bank had also been impleaded as 4th respondent. The duty to make the payment was, therefore, only on the 4th respondent and not on the petitioner. The other contention was that even subsequent to 19.01.2001, amounts had been paid upto 14.06.2003 and that she has no specific instructions whether amounts had been paid subsequently.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent joins issues on the liability of the Apex Bank to contend that as per the proceedings of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, the bank had undertaken only to take over liability of the employees borne on the common cadre that had been promoted/recruited by the competent authority in accordance with qualifications and against duly sanctioned posts. The contention was that the workman had not been appointed to any sanctioned post and that, therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the 4th respondent. Although, on the merits of such contention itself I do not propose to examine, one thing becomes clear that the 4th respondent is unwilling to make any payment seeing itself as a successor-in-interest with specified limited liability.