AJAYPAL SINGH Vs. HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 09,2014
AJAYPAL SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. S SATYAM [REFERRED TO]
M P HOUSING BOARD VS. MANOJ SHRIVASTVA [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH MANAGER M P STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVLOPMENT CORPN LTD VS. S C PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. ARJUNLAL RAJAK [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION VS. TRIBHUBAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. CASTERIBE RAJYA P KARMCHARI SANGHATANA [REFERRED TO]
HARJINDER SINGH VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY, GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGH VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-116] [REFERRED TO]SAHITYA RATNA LOKSHAHIR ANNABHAU VS. PRAVIN SATVA TELANG [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND ORS. VS. BHIMJIBHAI BACHUBHAI PARVADA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-3-261] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION VS. KRISHAN GOPAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURMAIL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-617] [REFERRED TO]
JAIRAM S/O MAHADEO SHENDE VS. ZILLA PARISHAD, BHANDARA THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-252] [REFERRED TO]
AMRISH KUMAR & ORS VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MASS COMMUNICATION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. RAJU KUMAR SHAH [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
J&K BANK LIMITED VS. CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHAYA VS. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
JASWINDER SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATIALA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2019-12-388] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL FARM MACHINERY TRAINING & TESTING INSTITUTE VS. SMT. UMMI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-168] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION [LAWS(SC)-2024-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
VASAPU L. KUMAR VS. ONGC FIELD OPERATORS UNION [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. RAJU KUMAR SHAH [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-252] [REFERRED TO]
KHUB RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. & ANR. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-7-100] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH VALLABHDAS KELAIYA VS. JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TWAD BOARD, MAINTENANCE DIVISION VS. INSPECTOR OF LABOURS, MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT CIMMCO BIRLA LIMITED, BHARATPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIK NIGAM VS. PANNA LAL RAJPUT AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER/LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
MATA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SRI MOOL CHANDRA, R/O 535/141, FATTEYPUR, SECTOR VS. DEPUTY MANAGER (KARMIK), U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LIMITED, MADAN MOHAN MALVIYA MARG, SETU BHAWAN, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH VALLABHDAS KELAIYA VS. JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRUBHA KATHUBHA VAGHELA VS. R.F.O. [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY VS. PRAKASHBHAI D RATHOD & 1 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-31] [REFERRED]
GOPAL SIMPI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAJAN AND ORS. VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT OFFICER, I.C.D.S. VS. MOHANLAL KUMHAR [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-111] [REFERRED TO]
ONGC LTD. VS. PETROLEUM COAL LABOUR UNION AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MADURAI) LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2017-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VS. SURESHCHANDRA SHANABHAI PAREKH [LAWS(GJH)-2020-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF CPWD VS. ABDUL GAFFAR & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT S/O PRABHAKAR JADHAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-251] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. VS. SMT. SHASHI KANTA RISHI [LAWS(DLH)-2018-3-33] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH GHASIT DHIKKYAV AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
LATHA S. AND ORS. VS. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (C&CA) AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR SINGH VS. EXECUTIVE ENG.P.W.D [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN RAMBHAU PHATAK AND ORS. VS. MAHATMA PHULE KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-185] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PANCHAYAT VS. BASANT LAL DHRUV [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-102] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR S/O GANESH PRASAD VS. THE CHAIRMAN [LAWS(PAT)-2018-3-416] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER VS. ANURAG SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-237] [REFERRED TO]
NARESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUHAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR - STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-97] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the order dated 16th February, 2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 1117 of 2009 (O & M). By the impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge with following observation:
"...several judgments have been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that reinstatement of a workman to a public post could not be allowed if the workman has not been recruited after following the mandatory requirement of Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution. The said judgment of learned Single, given in the year 1996, which is in conflict with above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be followed."
(2.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
"The Appellant was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the Respondent-Haryana Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), which is an 'Industry' within, the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appellant had completed more than 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year but his services were terminated with effect from 1st July, 1988 without one month's prior notice or pay in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
(3.)On a reference, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak by the Award dated 11th August, 1993 in Reference No. 480/89 held that the termination of services of the Appellant-workman was not justified and he is liable to be reinstated with full back wages. The said order was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15094 of 1993. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the order dated 26th March, 2009 held that the appointment of the workman was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement, but allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the workman. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.
"...several judgments have been delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, holding that reinstatement of a workman to a public post could not be allowed if the workman has not been recruited after following the mandatory requirement of Articles 14and 16 of the Constitution. The said judgment of learned Single, given in the year 1996, which is in conflict with above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be followed."
(2.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
"The Appellant was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the Respondent-Haryana Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), which is an 'Industry' within, the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Appellant had completed more than 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year but his services were terminated with effect from 1st July, 1988 without one month's prior notice or pay in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
(3.)On a reference, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak by the Award dated 11th August, 1993 in Reference No. 480/89 held that the termination of services of the Appellant-workman was not justified and he is liable to be reinstated with full back wages. The said order was challenged by the Corporation before the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 15094 of 1993. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by the order dated 26th March, 2009 held that the appointment of the workman was made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the workman is not entitled to reinstatement, but allowed compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the workman. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.