The Executive Engineer, Engineering, Division No.2 Bhiwani and Anr v. Vinod Kumar and Anr

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.(Oral)

¶1By way of this common order passed in CWP-2093 of 2019 titled as  The Executive Engineer, Engineering Division No.2, Bhiwani and anr Vs. Vinod Kumar and Anr, all the aforementioned 06 writ CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   3 petitions are being disposed of as a common question of law and facts is involved in all these writ petitions. The summarized details of aforementioned six writ petitions are as under: Sr. Case Case Title Reference Appoint Date   of Date   of Date   of No. No. No. before ed as appointment  termination award Labour Court

¶1CWP-The   Executive 44 of 2016 :Key 01.10.2013 14.03.2016 09.08.2018 2093 Engineer,   Engineering Man' of Division No.2, Bhiwani 2019 and   Anr   Vs.   Vinod Kumar and Anr

¶2CWP-The   Executive 35 of 2016 :Beldar/ 01.05.2007 29.02.2016 09.08.2018 2141 Engineer,   Engineering Key of Division No.2, Bhiwani Man' 2019 and  Anr   Vs.   Balwan Singh and Anr

¶3CWP-The   Executive 45 of 2016 :Beldar/ 01.08.2012 02.09.2015 09.08.2018 2163 Engineer,   Engineering Key of Division No.2, Bhiwani Man' 2019 and   Anr   Vs.   Vinay Kumar and Anr

¶4CWP-The   Executive  47 of 2016 :Beldar/ 04.05.2006 29.05.2016 09.08.2018 2198 Engineer,   Engineering Key of Division No.2, Bhiwani Man' 2019 and   Anr   Vs.   Suresh Kumar and Anr

¶5CWP-The   Executive 43 of 2016 :Key 01.03.2009 20.09.2015 09.08.2018 2200 Engineer,   Engineering Man' of Division No.2, Bhiwani 2019  and   Anr   Vs.   Gaje Singh and Anr

¶6CWP-The   Executive 37 of 2016 :Beldar 01.03.2007 29.02.2016 04.10.2018 3425-Engineer,   Engineering ' 2019 Division No.2, Bhiwani and Anr Vs. Mahipal and Anr Learned   Labour   Court   while   deciding   the   aforementioned references in favour of the workman(s) ordered for their reinstatement on the CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   4 same post with continuity of service alongwith all other consequential benefits, but  held that workman(s) shall not be entitled for back wages. After passing of the impugned award, the writ petitions are pending before this Court since the year 2009 and application(s) under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, have been filed in four writ petition(s) i.e. CWP-2093 of 2019, CWP-2163 of 2019, CWP-2198 of 2019 & CWP-3425 of 2019, and same are also pending adjudication since the time of its filing by the workman(s). Reply to the applications in four writ petition(s) have also been filed and same have already been taken on record, but petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947, by making payment of the last wages drawn. However, said aspect would also be dealt with in the concluding part of the present judgment. Although, the relevant facts are being extracted from CWP-2093 of 2019, yet in the facts and circumstances of each and every case mentioned hereabove, the question to be adjudicated is one and same, therefore, the same principle of law would be applicable in all such cases.

¶2Petitioners i.e. (i) The Executive Engineer, Engineering, Divi-sion No.2, Bhiwani; (ii) The Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health Engi-neering, Sub Division No.2, Bhiwani (Employer/Management), have as-sailed the award dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Industrial CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   5 Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, whereby reference No. 44 of 2016, has been answered in favour of workman. While holding that the termination of the workman is il-legal, as the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short, the Act of 1947') have not been complied with, learned Tribunal ordered for reinstatement of the workman on the same post with continuity in service and all other consequential benefits, except of the back wages.

¶3Pleaded case of the workman before Labour Court is that he was appointed by the Management on 01.10.2013 as 'Key Man' and posted at Dadri Road Booster, Bhiwani. He worked with various regular employees, namely, Raj Kumar, Sube Singh, Naresh Kumar, Dharambir, Mahabir, Rama Sajjan etc, and also worked under the supervision of different Junior Engi-neers (JEs) namely, Charna Singh, Nirmal Kumar and Ashwani Kumar etc. It was on 15.03.2016, when the workman reported for duty, he was verbally told that his services were no longer required. It was further pleaded that already more than 200 workers were working with the Management and no permission has been sought from the appropriate Government before removal of the workman from the services, thus,  the violation of provisions of Section 25-N  of the Act of 1947 was also pleaded. Also pleaded that by continuously working from 01.10.2013 to CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   6

14.03.2016, the workman had completed 240 working days in the preceding one year of his termination and, therefore, without issuance of any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, his services were terminated in vio-lation of provision of Sections 25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-N of the Act of 1947. Thus, the workman prayed for his reinstatement with continuity in ser-vice alongwith back wages and all other consequential benefits.

4.  On the other hand, in the written statement filed by the Man-agement (petitioners herein), there is a total denial of the Employer and em-ployee relationship. A specific stand has been taken by the Management that the  workman   was   never   appointed   as   'Key   Man'   on   D.C.   rates   on

01.10.2013 as alleged. It was further pleaded that the workman might have worked under various contractors on various sites as per the requirement of the work. Once, the workman was never appointed by the Management, no question of his removal/termination from service arises.

¶5After completion of the pleadings of the parties, following is-sues were framed by the Labour Court: "1. Whether the termination of services of the peti-tioner is legal or not?if so, to what relief he entitled to?OPP.

2. Relief."

¶6The workman produced the witness namely, Naresh Kumar as WW1 and Chandan Sharma as WW2, who proved a fact on record that the workman had worked alongwith them under their supervision. Workman himself also appeared as WW3 and reiterated the averments of his claim CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   7 statement. The workman got summoned the record  and same was produced by the official of the Management, namely, Suresh Kumar, Clerk and his statement was recorded on 28.09.2017. From the log book, charge book, light Register and bleaching power Register of Dadri Road Booster for the period  01.02.2014 to 14.03.2016, he proved the working of the workman from 01.12.2014 to 14.03.2016. The said set of documents have been placed on record Ex. W1 to Ex.W6.

¶7For proving the defense taken by the Management, witness, namely, Subhas Chand Yadav, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer-ing Division No.2-Bhiwani appeared as MW1 and deposed that the depart-ment never employed any employee, but the workman was engaged through the Contractor. However, said witness could not disclose the name of the Contractor.

¶8For the reason that in support of the bold and specific stand taken by the Management, neither the name of the Contractor; nor any other detail to prove the said plea has been brought on record, learned Labour Court recorded its findings against the Management. Undoubtedly, once the rendering of services to the Management and the service period of the work-man is not under dispute, the only question left before the Court is that for the violation of the provisions of the Act of 1947, whether it is Management who would be responsible or the Contractor, as pleaded by the Management to escape from its liability. CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   9

¶8On/e, Court 0in#s t)(t t)ere is not (n iot( oti e.i#en/e or (n, ot)er su>st(n/eE=(teri(+ to /on/+u#e t)(t t)e <orB "o<er <(s t(Ben >, t)e !(n(*e=ent 0ro= t)e Contr(/tor, no ot)er o"tion is +etit <it) t)e Court eA2 /e"t to >e+ie.e t)e "+e( t(Ben >, t)e <orB=(n, es"e/i(++, <)en ot)er 0(/ts (re not in #is"ute. Si=i+(r is t)e 0in#in*s re/or#e# >, +e(rne# $(>our Court. For t)e "ur"ose oti retieren/e (n# /on.enien/e, t)e s(=e (re re"ro#u/e# )ere>e2 +o<' "9. To prove his case, the petitioner examined Naresh Kumar as WW1 and Chandan Sharma as WW2, who inter alia, stated that they have been em-ployees of the respondents and that the petitioner had worked along with them under their supervision. The petitioner himself appeared as WW3 and reiterated the averments of his claim statement. The petitioner also summoned the record from the respondents and the same was produced by Suresh Kumar, clerk and his statements were recorded on 28.09.2017 and

28.09.2017. In his statement recorded on 28.09.2017 he produced logbook. Charge book, light register and bleaching power register of Dadri Road Booster for the period from 01.02.2014 to  14.03.2016. He stated that name of the petitioner appears in the logbook, charge register and bleaching powder register. As per the above said record, the petitioner has continu-ously worked from 01.12.2014 to 14.03.2016. He pro-duced records as Ex.W1 to Ex. W6.

¶10On the other hand, respondents examined Sh. Subhas chand Yadav, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division No.2 Bhiwani, as MW1. He reiterated the case of the respondents as pleaded in the written statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that no employee was engaged by the depart-ment and they had been engaged through the con-tractor but he did not know the name of the contrac-tor. He admitted that post of Beldar, Keyman and wa-ter pump operators are of regular nature.

¶11The learned authorized representative for the petitioner referred to the pleadings and the evidence CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   8 on record and contended that the petitioner has worked with the respondents as Keyman for the pe-riod from 01.10.2013 to 14.03.2016 continuously and his services were terminated on 15.03.2016. He fur-ther contended that this fact is not only proved from the record produced by the respondents but also ad-mitted by Suresh Kumar who has produced the record before this court on 28.09.2017 and stated that as per the record, the petitioner has continuously worked in the Department from 01.12.2014 to

14.03.2016. He further contended that case of the re-spondents in the written statement is that of total de-nial and they have pleaded that the petitioner might have worked through the contractor but no name of any contractor has been disclosed. He submitted that admittedly the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days inthe preceding 12 months of his termina-tion and since no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given to him, mandatory provi-sions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were violated. Hence, he argued that the present petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service and all other consequential benefits. He, how-ever, made a statement that the petitioner did not claim back wages and forgoes the same.

¶12On the other hand, learned Govt. Pleader ap-pearing for the respondents vehemently resisted the said contentions and submitted that the petitioner has not been an employee of the respondents and he might have worked through the contractors. He fur-ther submitted that, thus there is no relationship of employer and employee but when the parties and the petitioners is not entitled to any relief that in the grab of filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking regularization of his services which is not permissible under the law. Hence, he argued that the present peti-tion may be dismissed.

¶13After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and appreciating the entire evi-dence adduced in the case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be al-lowed. The case of the petitioner is that he has worked with the respondents as Keyman from

01.10.2013 to 14.03.2016 and that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 15.03.2016 and he was verbally told that his services were no longer required. On the other hand, case of the respondents in the written statement is that of total denial but their own official-Suresh Kumar, who produced the summoned record on 28.09.2017, stated that as per CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   17 the record, the petitioner has worked continuously in the department from 01.12.2014 to 14.03.2016. The record produced by said Suresh Kumar also corrobo-rates his version. Thus, as per the own showing of the respondents, the petitioner has worked with them during the aforesaid period. It is, therefore, explicit that the respondents have taken a factually false plea in their written statement when they denied any rela-tionship of employer and employee between the par-ties. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner might have worked through the contractors but no name of any such contractor has been disclosed and this plea remains unsubstantiated. Further, Suresh Kumar, Clerk, from the office of the respondents, ad-mitted in his statement while producing the record that name of the petitioner appeared in the charge book/register and he had worked as keyman. Thus, it is proved from the overwhelming oral and documen-tary evidence as well as from the own admission of the official of the respondents that the petitioner has worked as Beldar from 01.12.2014 to 14.03.2016 and therefore, he had completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his termination on

15.03.2016. Since, no notice, notice pay or retrench-ment compensation was given to the petitioner, mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were violated by the respon-dents." 101 In .ie< oti t)e #is/ussion =(#e (n# re/or#e# )ere(>o.e, t)is Court #oes not 0in# (n, intiir=it, in t)e <e++ re(sone# /on/+usion re/or#e# >, +e(rne# $(>our Court t)(t t)e ter=in(tion oti t)e <orB=(n is in .io+(tion oti "ro.isions oti Se/tion 252F oti t)e A/t (n# t)us, <orB=(n is entit+e# 0or re2 inst(te=ent <it) /ontinuit, in ser.i/e (n# (++ ot)er /onse?uenti(+ >enetiits. A//or#in*+, to t)(t eAtent t)e (<(r# is =(int(ine# (n#  the ;rit ?etition(s) 7iled >A the Mana:e=ent isCare here>A dis=issed.

¶11Ho<e.er, it is noti/e# t)(t t)e ter=in(tion oti t)e <orB=(n1s: 0ro= t)eir ser.i/es is in t)e ,e(r 2715E2716 (n# (<(r# )(s >een "(sse# >, t)e $(>our Court in t)e ,e(r 2719, >ut not)in* )(s >een or#ere# to >e "(i# CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   11 by the Labour Court towards back wages from the period the workmen were terminated till the time of award. Undisputedly, no amount has been paid  to the workman(s) from the period of passing of the award till date even to-wards the monthly wages as required under the Mandatory provision of law i.e. Section 17-B of the Act of 1947. 12 Thus, it would be just  to direct the petitioners-Management to pay the last drawn salary from the date of passing of the award by learned Labour Court  in the year 2018. While holding them entitled for post award period, the Court has taken a moderate view because nothing has been paid by the learned Labour Court towards back wages for the period they were terminated from the services till passing of the award i.e. from the year 2015/2016 to  year 2018.

¶13It is also made clear that the amount of last wages drawn is to be paid to the workman(s) by the petitioner-Management within a period of three months from today i.e. 17.08.2024, failing which petitioner-manage-ment would pay the said amount alongwith complete arrears for the already said period alongwith interest @ 6% applicable from the date of passing of this order i.e. 17.05.2024.

¶14With the aforementioned observations, all the writ petitions are hereby disposed of. CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases   12

¶15A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other con-nected cases. [SANJAY VASHISTH]

17.05.2024              JUDGE rashmi Whether reportable? yes

CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 CWP-2093-2019(O&M) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus VINOD KUMAR AND ANR ....Respondents 220-2 CWP-2141-2019 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus BALWAN SINGH AND ANR ....Respondents 220-3 CWP-2163-2019(O&M) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus VINAY KUMAR AND ANR ....Respondents 220-4 CWP-2198 OF 2019(O&M) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus SURESH KUMAR AND ANR ....Respondents CWP-2093-2019(O&M) and other connected cases 2 220-5 CWP-2200-2019 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus GAJE SINGH AND ANR ....Respondents 220-6 CWP-3425-2019(O&M) THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENGINEERING, DIVISION NO.2, BHIWANI AND ANR .... Petitioners Versus MAHIPAL AND ANR ....Respondents Decided on:17.05.2024 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Satish Singla, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1. (CWP-3425, 2163, 2093 and 2198 of 2019). None for respondent No.1 (in CWP-2200 and 2141 of 2019). *****