HC raps state for rising litigation

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 30

In a major embarrassment for the Punjab government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped it for not only increasing litigation but also for not understanding the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 25-F of the Act deals with conditions precedent to the retrenchment of workmen. Taking up a bunch of appeals on the compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, the High Court asserted: “Several cases are coming before us where the state or instrumentality of the state is terminating the services of the workmen without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act.

“The state authorities have not understood the provisions of the Act. They have not even followed the basic requirement of terminating the services of a workman by following the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act and are unnecessarily increasing litigation before the Labour Court as well as this court”.

The rebuke by Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Justice Deepak Sibal came on appeals filed by the state and other appellants against Avtar Singh and other respondents. The Bench observed that the workmen were in employment of the appellants from March 1995, to April 1997, before their services were terminated.

“The workmen approached the High Court and then the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter with a direction to the appellants to consider their claim for re-employment, after relaxing the age”. They were employed by the appellants again in September 2001. But their services were once more terminated by the appellants in November 2002, “and that too in gross violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act”.

The Labour Court held that their services were illegally terminated in violation of Section 25-F, and that they had continuously worked with the appellants for more than 240 days preceding the date of their termination.

The Labour Court also awarded compensation of Rs 50,000 to each workman in lieu of their reinstatement. The amount awarded to each workman was subsequently enhanced by the Single Judge to Rs 1 lakh. Besides, Rs 10,000 was awarded as litigation expenses to each workman.

Dismissing the appeals with costs of Rs 10,000 in each case, the Bench added: “The fact remains that earlier also the workmen had worked with the appellants for about two years and their services were illegally terminated by adopting unfair labour practice.

Thus, in our opinion, the fact has rightly been taken into consideration by the Single Judge, while finding that the amount of compensation of Rs 50,000 to each workman awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement is inadequate and unreasonable and enhancing the same to Rs 1 lakh.”