STATE OF PUNJAB v. ANIL KUMAR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Lokeshwar Singh Pant
Judgment Date: 2007-04-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed; reinstatement of the respondent is maintained, but the direction for payment of back wages is set aside.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab

Respondents

Anil Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.K. Rathore
• M.K. Verma
• Sanjay Jain

Counsels for Respondents

• Ranbir Singh Yadav
• Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar concerns the reinstatement of a daily-wage workman employed by the Punjab Roadways in the early 1980s. The respondent worked intermittently for fixed periods between 6.2.1981 and 30.9.1985 and was not engaged thereafter. He filed civil suits seeking declaration of continued service and back wages; these suits were withdrawn at different stages. A demand under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was served on 29.9.1998, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court in its 12.11.2003 award directed reinstatement with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice. The High Court upheld reinstatement, noting that the workman had worked for more than 240 days before termination. The State Government challenged the decision, arguing that the respondent, given fixed-period engagements, could not be reinstated and the reference was belated (after 13 years). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of reinstatement but set aside the back-wages award, emphasizing delay and laches in approaching the authorities. While upholding reinstatement, the Court directed that back wages be disallowed due to the extraordinary delay, thereby balancing the protection of workers’ rights with the equities of belated relief.

Provisions of Law Cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State argued that the respondent, engaged for fixed periods, was not entitled to reinstatement and that the reference under the Industrial Disputes Act was belated (made after about 13 years). It was contended that civil suits and proceedings had already addressed the issues and that the back-wages demand should be denied on the ground of delay and laches. The appellants emphasized the fixed-term nature of service and urged that reinforcement of reinstatement could not be mandated after such a long gap.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent workman argued that the Labour Court rightly held entitlement to reinstatement due to more than 240 days of service prior to termination and that withdrawal of earlier suits did not negate the right to relief under the Act. He contended that back wages were payable from the date of demand notice and that his long service history warranted relief under established principles.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_I_ A ## STATE OF PUNJAB v. ## ANILKUMAR ## APRIL 25, 2007 B [DR. ARIIlT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] _Labour Laws:_ _Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:_ c _Reinstatement in service-Back Wages-Workman engaged on daily wages-Termination of services-Demand for reference raised after 13 yearsAward of reinstatement with 40% back wages by Labour Court-High Court declining to interfere-Held: Since High Court has recorded a finding that workman had worked for 240 days, order of reinstatement is maintained-_ D _However, as Labour Court was approached after 13 years, direction for payment of back wages is set aside-Delay/Laches._ Respondent was engaged on daily wages in the Roadways of the appellantState for specific periods, from time to time between 6.2.1981and30.9.1985. Thereafter he was not engaged. The respondent filed two civil suits, one after E the other, claiming continuation in the service. However, both the suits were withdrawn by him at the appellate stage. Thereafter, a demand notice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, being served on the appellant on 20.9.1998, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which passed an award dated 12.11.2003 directing reinstatement of the respondent with 40% back wages F[from ][20.9.1998. ][The respondent joined duties ][on ][1.4.2005. ][The writ petition ] filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court observing that the workman had worked for more than 240 days before termination of his services. In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, it was contended G that since the respondent was engaged for fixed period, reinstatement could not have been directed; and that the demand for reference was belatedly made after 13 years. )< Allowing the appea~ the Court H 650 651 STATE OF PUNJABv. ANIL KUMAR [PASAYAT,J.] _i_ HELD: In view of the factual position, there is no infirmity in the order A passed by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court so far as entitlement of the respondent-workman to be re-instated is concerned. At the same time the fact that there was belated approach cannot be lost sight of. Admittedly, the Labour Court was moved after 13 years. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the direction for payment of back wages is set aside. (Paras 11and14] (652-G-H; 653-A-C] B B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2139 of2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2005 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 6927 of2005. c R.K. Rathore, M.K. Verma and Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Ranbir Singh Yadav and Sumeer Kumar Shrivastava for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D - ~ ## DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. l. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Pun jab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. E 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent was engaged in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot on daily-wage basis with effect from 6.2.1981. He was engaged on such basis in the Jalandhar Depot No. 2 from 15.9.1981 to 27.12.1981. Again, he was engaged on daily-wage basis in Punjab Roadways, Moga from 16.2.1983 to F 30.9.1985. Such engagements were for specific periods. As there was no work for the respondent in Punjab Roadways, Moga, he was not engaged after 30.9.1985. - " 4. Respondent filed civil suit in the Civil Court at Jalandhar claiming that he was in continuous service. The learned Civil Court decreed the suit holding G that the respondent was deemed to be an employee of appellant and he is entitled to back wages from the date of institution of the suit. 5. An appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar by the appellant. The suit was withdrawn by the respondent and as such the judgment H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. _.1_ and decree dated 9.2.1991 lost their force. On 9.5.1994 respondent again filed A a Civil Suit for declaration that his service in Punjab Roadways stood regularized since 5.2.1981. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) on 12.10.1996. Respondent filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar. The said appeal was again withdrawn on 17.9.1998. B 6. A demand notice under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') was served on the appellant on 29.9.1998 by the respondent. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar, for adjudication under the Act. Appellant filed written statement raising preliminary objections that (a) the reference was bad being belated, (b) the discontinuance was justified and ( c) the appellant has already availed the opportunity in the c civil court. The Labour court, Jalandhar passed an award directing reinstatement with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. with effect from 29.9.1998. A writ petition i.e. CWP No. 4748 of2005 was filed by the respondent for the direction to the present appellant to implement the A ward dated 12.11.2003. He joined duties on 1.4.2005. ## D 7. The appellant also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was numbered as Civil Writ Petition No. 6927 of 2005. **==> picture [11 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> \<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> li'-· , - 8. The High Court dismissed the writ petition tiled by the appellant. The High Court noted that the workman had worked for more than 240 days of E[service ][before ][his ][services ][were ][terminated ][and ][accordingly ][the ][award ][of ][the ] Labour court did not warrant 'any interference. 9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the civil suit filed, was thoroughly misconceived. In view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act on expiry of the fixed period for which engagement was F done, there was no scope for any direction for reinstatement. The. demand for reference under the Act was made after 13 years. I 0. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there was a clear admission before the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days. ## G ~ _)(_ - I I. In view of the factual position as highlighted above, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court so far as entitlement of the respondent-workman to be re-instated. 12. At the same time the fact that there was belated approach cannot ## H 653 B STATEOFPUNJABv. ANILKUMAR[PASAYAT,J.) be lost sight of. Admittedly, there was belated approach and the Labour Court A was moved after 13 years. 13. In the peculiar circumstances of the case while upholding the direction for reinstatement, we direct that the directions given by the Labour court as affirmed by the High Court regarding payment of back wages need to be ~~ 14. In the aforesaid background, the direction for payment of back wages stands set aside while the direction for reinstatement is maintained. 15. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. R.P. Appeal partly allowed.[C. ]