STATE OF HARYANA v. DILBAGH SINGH

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2006-10-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. The respondent shall be reinstated; due to peculiar facts, the respondent will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant shall issue an appointment order of the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

STATE OF HARYANA

Respondents

DILBAGH SINGH

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Manjit Singh
• A.A.G.
• Harikesh Singh
• T.V. George

Counsels for Respondents

• Anil Hooda
• Dr. Sushil Balwada
• Ram Kishore Singh Yadav
• Kaushal F Yadav
• Harinder Mohan Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This case concerns a termination dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the State of Haryana and Dilbagh Singh, a Beldar in the Public Works Department (B & R). Dilbagh Singh was terminated on 25 December 1999, and a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that there was a breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H because a person junior to the respondent remained in service while the respondent was terminated, and it granted reinstatement with continuity of service and 50 percent back wages from the date of the demand notice (1 February 2000). The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the Labour Court’s award. The State of Haryana challenged the award in Civil Appeal No. 3443 of 2006 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant failed to establish that no junior to the respondent was retained in the Department; it noted that evidence pointed to the retention of juniors. Nevertheless, on the peculiar facts of the case, the Court upheld reinstatement but held that the respondent would not be entitled to any back wages. The order directs the State to issue a formal appointment order within one month from the date of the judgment and there will be no order as to costs. The appeal is dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 25-G and 25-H

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Labour Court’s award reinstating the respondent with continuity of service and 50% back wages should be set aside; argued lack of conclusive evidence that any junior to the respondent was retained; urged that the findings of violation under sections 25-G and 25-H were not satisfactorily established and that the remedy of reinstatement with back wages was inappropriate given the facts.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings of breach of 25-G and 25-H and the remedy of reinstatement with continuity of service, though back wages were subjected to scrutiny; they argued that the Department’s conduct warranted restoration of the employee’s position, and that the High Court correctly affirmed the Labour Court’s award.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## STATE OF HARYANA _v._ ## DILBAGH SINGH ## OCTOBER 18, 2006 B [A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] _Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:_ _ss. 25-G and 25-H-Workman-Termination of services, but his juniors_ C _retained in service-Tribunal holding that there being violation of provisions of ss.25-G and 25-H, workman would be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice-Held, the finding of Tribunal has not been controverted by the Management and there is no reason to take a different view, from that of the Tribunal which has been affirmed by_ D _High Court-Workman will be reinstated, but in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, he will not be entitled to any back wages._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3443 of2006. From the Judgment and final Order dated 28.4.2005 of the High Court E of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 6550/2005. Manjit Singh, A.A.G., Harikesh Singh and T.V. George for the Appellant. Anil Hooda, Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Ram Kishore Singh Yadav, Kaushal F Yadav, Harinder Mohan Singh for the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ## ORDER G This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.04.2005 whereby the Division Bench has confirmed the award given by the Labour Court. H The respondent was serving as a Beldar in PWD (B & R) and his services were terminated on 25.12.1999. A dispute under the Industrial 334 335 STATE OF HARYANA _v._ DILBAGH SINGH Disputes Act, 194 7 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ·Act') was raised and the matter was referred to Labour Court and the Labour Court after hearing both the parties found that there is a breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. It was held that person junior to the respondent is still working whereas the services of the respondent had been terminated. Therefore, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the respondent and granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. from 1.2.2000. Aggrieved against that order a writ petition was filed before the High Court and the High Court affinned the order of the Labour Court. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the C appellant has failed to substantiate that no person junior to the respondent had been retained in the Department. It is a clear finding of the Tribunal that a person like Krishan s/o Dharam Singh who is junior to the respondent is still working with the Management whereas the services of the respondent had been terminated. It is also alleged that another person named Mahabir who is also junior to the respondent is still working with the Management. D Therefore, the Tribunal has found violation of Sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act. This finding of fact has not been controverted by the management and there is no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Tribunal which was affirmed by the High Court. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondent shall be E reinstated but looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, he will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellant shall issue order of appointment of the respondent within one month from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.