Bachni Devi v. Principal Secretary and Others

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1.

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP-6483-2014 titled as Bachni Devi vs Principal Secretary and others and CWP-902-2019 titled as Bachni Devi vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and others, as the relief sought in these petitions is inter-related.

2.

CWP-6483-2014 titled as Bachni Devi vs Principal Secretary and others, has been filed by petitioner-Bachni Devi, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure P-13) ; whereby the claim for regularization of her services had

been rejected by the District Education Officer (SE) Patiala by holding that she was being paid from school funds and her appointment had not been made under any norms.

3.

Vide CWP-902-2019 titled as Bachni Devi vs Assistant Labor Commissioner, Patiala, District Patiala, the petitioner is seeking quashing of impugned Award dated 16.10.2018 (Annexure P-10) to the extent whereby, she was not held entitled to relief of re-instatement with back wages and instead, she was granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- only.

4.

Briefly, the petitioner is stated to have been appointed on

01.01.1993 as Chowkidar-cum-Peon in the Government High School, Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (respondent No.4). Petitioner claims that she approached the Management for her absorption in the vacant post of Peon on regular basis by submitting a representation dated

01.12.2011; however, since no response was received in that regard, accordingly, she filed CWP-1471-2012 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner in her representation. It appears that vide order dated

02.05.2012 passed by respondent No.3-District Education Officer (Sr. Sec.), Patiala , the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Order dated

02.05.2012 (Annexure P-13) is subject matter of challenge in CWP-6483-2014.

5.

The petitioner claims that subsequently, respondent No.4-Principal Government High School, Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, informed her that her services are no more required and hence, the same were terminated on 08.01.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice dated 22.02.2013;

whereupon, the conciliation proceedings were conducted. However, the then Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala passed an order dated

23.05.2013, rejecting the demand notice of the petitioner; whereupon, she instituted an appeal, which was also dismissed on 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-8).

6.

Being dis-satisfied against the orders dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) and 05.09.2013 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-25108-2013, which was allowed by setting aside the afore-said orders dated 23.05.2013 and 05.09.2013 and a direction was issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Patiala to send a report to the appropriate government, as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as `the Act, 1947'). It was further directed that the appropriate government shall thereafter act upon the report strictly in accordance with law in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act, 1947.

7.

It appears that thereafter, the dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala.

8.

The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, vide Award dated 16.10.2018 answered the reference in favour of the workman. However, the petitioner was not held entitled to any relief of re-instatement with back wages and instead compensation of Rs.10,000/- was awarded to her.

9.

Accordingly, the petitioner has impugned the afore-stated Award dated 16.10.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, before this Court in the present writ petition.

10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal below has erred in law and facts in not granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages to the petitioner despite holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947.

¶11It is submitted that the petitioner was a regular employee for the last more than 20 years with the respondent-Management so her services were liable to be restored. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal below has acted arbitrarily in denying the relief to the petitioner and instead granted a meagre compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief could not have been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that her appointment was not made in accordance with the relevant statutory Recruitment Rules.

¶12On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed after following the due process of law and that it was not a regular appointment. It is submitted that although, the termination of the services of the petitioner has been held to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947; however, it is well settled that merely on that account, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement. Learned State counsel has supported the Award passed by the learned Tribunal below by submitting that an appropriate relief has already been granted to the petitioner and no further interference is required to be made in the said Award. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the instant writ petition has been made.

¶13I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

¶14TheolearnedotribunalobelowowhileopassingotheoimpugnedoAwardoo datedo16.10.2018,oreturnedotheofollowingofindings:o o o "12.o Itoisotheocaseoofotheoworkwomanothatosheo joinedo theo managemento ono 01.01.1993o aso Peono ato Governmento Higho School,o Manakpuro ando workedo tillo

07.01.2013o ando sheo waso gettingo theo salaryo ofo Rs.700/-o P.M.oItoisoalsootheocaseoofotheoworkwomanothatoafterohero terminationosomeojuniorowasoretainedobyomanagement.oOno theootherohand,oitoisotheostandoofotheorespondentsothatotheo workwomano waso appointedo aso Assistanto too Class-IVo employeesoono07-11-2008oforoaoperiodoofo89odaysobyotheo ParentsoTeachersoAssociationoCommitteeovideoresolutiono No.12o ono theo consolidatedo paymento ofo honorariumo ofo Rs.700/-.o o o 13.o Ino ordero too proveo hero claimo sheo herselfo steppedo intoo theo witnesso boxo ando reiteratedo hero entireo versionoasomentionedoinoheroclaimoapplication,obutoduringo crosso examinationo sheo haso statedo thato sheo doeso noto rememberotheodateomontho oroyearowheno sheopreviouslyo workedoinotheoschooloatoManakpuroand,othereafter,osheoiso workingo continuouslyo ino theo saido school.o Sheo furthero statedothatoafterosheowasoterminatedooneoDhiroChandowaso keptobyotheomanagement.oSheoworkedoinotheoschooloforo continuouslyo16oyears.oo o o 14.o Onotheootherohand,omanagementoappearedo througho Sukhjito Singh,o Senioro Lecturero Governmento Serviceo Trainingo Center,o Roopnagar,o whoo admittedo duringohisocrosso examinationo thato Bachnio Deviousedo too workoasoAssistantoClass-IVoono23-12-2009oonoPTAoFundo ando sheo iso workingo sinceo Novembero 2008.o Heo furthero statedothatothereoisonoounionoinotheiroschooloofoclass-IVo employees.oHeofurtherostatedothatothereoisonooseniorityolisto ofotemporaryoworkers.oHeofurtherostatedothatosomeoofotheo Grade-IVoemployeesoworkoinotheiroschooloonopermanento postsoandotheirorecruitmentothroughoPunjaboGovernment.o Temporaryo workerso cano alsoo applyo foro theo permanento postsoifotheyofulfilloallotheoconditionsolaidodownobyoPunjabo Government.o Heo furthero statedo thato Koshalyao Devi,o SweeperoandoDarshanoKaur,oPeonoareoworkingoinotheiro schooloonopermanentobasisoandobothohaveobeenoretired.o Furtherostatedothatotheyohaveokeptotheorecordoofotemporaryo employeesoinotheiroschool.oHeohasonotorecruitedoanyoclass-IVoemployee.oHeofurtherostatedothatoheohasonotoregularizedo theoservicesoofoanyotemporaryoworkeroduringohisotenureo noroheoisohavingoanyoauthority.oHeohasofurtherostatedothato heohasonotoplacedoonorecordoanyodocumentotooproveotheo workingoofoBachnioDevi,oGovernmentoElementaryoSchoolo Mahinderganj,oRajpura.oHeofurtherostatedothatotheosalaryo tootheotemporaryoworkersoisogivenooutoofoPTAoFund.oHeo furtherostatedothatonooPTAoemployeeomentionedoinoEx.X2o waso kepto ono permanento basis.o Eveno Dhiro Chando Chowkidarohasonotobeenomadeopermanent.oHeohasofurthero statedothatoBachnioDevioworkwomanowasoremovedofromo theo serviceso aso thereo waso lacko ino PTAo Funds.o Heo haso furthero statedo thato theyo removeo Bachnio Devio fromo theo servicesoafteroputtingoresolutionoono30-09-2012oandosheo wasotoldonototoocomeofromo20-12-2012.oHeohasofurthero statedothatonooemployeeokeptobyothemoinoplaceoofoBachnio Devio workwoman.o Heo furthero statedo thato Bachnio Devio doesonotofulfillotheoconditionsoofoservice.o o o 15.o Aparto fromo theo aforesaido statementso workwomano haso alsoo broughto ono recordo Ex.W2o hero identityo cardo witho Employmento Exchange,o Punjab.o Sheo haso alsoo broughto ono recordo theo photocopyo ofo medicalo reportofromoCiviloSurgeon,oPatialaoEx.W3,ophotocopyoofo theo affidavito regardingo declarationo ofo hero ageo Ex.W4,o Ex.W5o regardingo theo dateo ofo birtho demandedo byo theo Principalo ofo Governmento Senioro Secondaryo School.o Ex.W6,oEx.W7,oEx.W8,oEx.W9,oEx.W16,oEx.W23,oEx.W24o andoMark-A6oareotheolettersowrittenobyoBachnioDeviotoo variousodepartmentsofororegularizationoofoherojob.oEx.W10o isotheophotocopyoofotheopetitionofiledobyoBachnioDevioinotheoGURPREET KAUR Hon'bleo Higho Court.o Ex.W12o iso theo photocopyo ofo theo ordero passedo byo Hon'bleo Higho Court.o Ex.W14o iso theo photocopyoofotheoorderopassedo byotheoofficeo ofo Districto EducationoOfficer,oPatiala.oEx.W15oisotheoreportowritteno tooDirectoroEducationoDepartmentobyoPrincipaloofoSenioro SecondaryoSchool,oinowhichoitohasobeenomentionedothato theoworkwomanowasokeptoforo89odaysoand,othereafter,osheo waso giveno breako ando againo sheo waso kepto ato theo job.o Thereafter,oinoMayo2010osheodidonotojoinotheodutyoafterotheo break.oSheowasoagainokeptoonotheojoboono16-07-2011ovideo resolutionono.30oofo11-07-2011.oEx.W17oisotheophotocopyo ofo theo resolutiono no.40o dt.o 30-09-2012o video whicho theo servicesoofoworkwomanowereoterminatedodueotoolackoofo PTAoFunds.oNoneoofotheodocumentsoplacedoonotheorecordo byo theo workwomano proveso thato sheo waso permanento employeeo ofo theo respondento oro thato sheo continuouslyo workedofromo01-01-1993otoo08-01-2013.o o o 16.o Itoisosettledopositionoofolawothatotheoburdeno ofoproofoisoonoworkwomanotooestablishothatosheoremainedo workingowithotheoRespondentoManagementoandothatosheo completedo240odaysoofoserviceoinotheoprecedingocalendaro yearobeforeotheoterminationoofoheroservices.oo o o 17.o Thusoitoisoevidentothatosheowasoworkingoaso ano Assistanto Class-IVo employeeo witho Respondento Management,oatotheotimeoofoterminationoofoheroservices.o Thereoisonooreliableoevidenceoonotheorecordotooestablisho thatoworkwomanoabandonedotheojoboono07-01-2013.oItoiso evidento thato beforeo terminatingo hero services,o noo noticeo waso servedo too workwoman.o Eveno noo retrenchmento compensationowasogivenotooheroatotheotimeoofoterminationo ofoheroservice,oasoperotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono25-Foofo Industrialo Disputeso Act,o 1947.o So,o ito iso evidento thato servicesoofoworkwomanowasoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheo provisionso ofo Sectiono 25-Fo ofo Industrialo Disputeso Act,o 1947.o o o 18.o Inorecentotimes,otrendsohaveobeenochangingo regardingo theo labouro laws,o ino ouro country.o Non-complianceo ofo theo provisionso ofo theo Sectiono 25-Fo ofo IndustrialoDisputesoAct,o1947,oalthoughomayoleadotootheo grantoofotheoreliefooforeinstatementowithofullobackowageso ando continuityo ofo serviceo ino favouro ofo retrenchedo workwoman,otheosameowouldonotomeanothatosuchoreliefoiso toobeograntedoautomaticallyooroasoaomatteroofocourse,oaso hasobeenoheldobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinoHaryanao Stateo Electronicso Developmento Corporationo Ltd.o Vs.o Mamnio 2006(2)o LLJ(SC)o Pageo 744.o Ino theo saido case,o Hon'bleo Supremeo Courto modifiedo impugnedo awardo byo directingothatotheoworkwomanoshallobeocompensatedobyo paymentoofoRs.25000/-oinsteadoofoorderooforeinstatemento withobackowages.o o o 19.o Theo employmento ino questiono iso ao publico Employmento governedo byo ruleso ando regulations.o Workwomano waso noto qualifiedo too beo appointedoooooooooooooooooooooo aso Assistanto Class-IVo employeeo aso statedo byo MW1ooooooooooooo Sukhjito Singh.o Theo appointmento ofo workwomano aso AssistantoClass-IVoemployeeowasonotomadeoasoperopropero procedure.o Hero serviceso wereo nevero regularized.o Sucho typeoofoad-hocoorotemporaryoappointmentobeingocontraryo tootheoprovisionsoofoArticleo14o&o16oofoConstitutionoareo illegal,ohasobeenoheldobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoino Secretary,o Stateo ofo Karnatkao Vs.o Umao Devio &o otherso 2006(2)oLLJoPageo722o(SC).o o o 20.o Ino theo lighto ofo theo aboveo discussion,o ito iso heldo thato workwomano iso noto entitledo too reliefo ofo reinstatementowithobackowages.oTakingointooconsiderationo theo facto thato workwomano waso gettingo Rs.700/-o P.M.o aso wagesoandosheoworkedowithotheorespondentoManagemento foroperiodoofoabouto20oyears,ointerestsoofojusticeoshallobeo sub-servedoifocompensationoworthoRs.10,000/-oisodirectedo too beo paido too theo workwomano byo theo respondento management.oAccordinglyobothotheseoissuesoareodisposedoGURPREET KAUR of,o whileo holdingo thato workwomano iso entitledo too geto compensationo wortho Rs.10,000/-,o fromo theo Respondento Management,oinoplaceoofotheoorderooforeinstatementowitho backowages.o RELIEFo

21.o Inotheolightoofomyofindingsonotedoabove,othiso referenceo iso herebyo answeredo ino favouro ofo workwomano andorespondentoisodirectedotoocompensateotheoworkwomano witho Rs.10,000/-o (Rupeeso teno thousando only)o withino 45o daysoofotheopublicationoofotheoaward,ofailingowhichotheo workwomano shallo beo entitledo too theo awardedo amounto alongowithointeresto@o6%operoannumotillorealization.o o o Fileo beo consignedo too recordo roomo aftero dueo compilation."oooo

15.o o Concededly,o theo serviceso ofo theo petitioner-workwomano haveo beenoheldotoobeoterminatedoinoviolationoofotheoprovisionsoofoSectiono25-Foofo theoAct,o1947.oTheoemployer/respondentohasonotolaidoanyochallengeotootheo impugnedo awardo hereino wherebyo compensationo waso awardedo too theo petitioner-workwoman.o

16.o o Theolatestolegalotrendoisoawardoofocompensationoinoplaceoofo reinstatement.oInotheocaseoofoBSNLov.oManoSingh:o(2012)o1oSCCo558,otheo ApexoCourtoheldothatowhenotheoterminationoisosetoasideobecauseoofoviolationo ofo25FoofotheoAct,o1947,oitoisonotonecessaryothatotheoreliefooforeinstatemento beogivenoasoaomatterooforight.oo

17.o o InoInchargeoOfficerov.oShankaroShetty:o(2010)o9oSCCo126,oito wasointeroaliaoheldothatoinothoseocasesowhereotheoworkmanohadoworkedoono dailyowageobasis,oandoworkedomerelyoforoaoperiodoofo240odaysooro2-3oyearso andowhereotheoterminationohadotakenoplaceomanyoyearsoago,otheorecentotrendo wasotoograntocompensationoinolieuooforeinstatement.oo o o InoooShankaroShetty'soocaseo(supra),ootheooHon'bleooApexoooCourto reiteratedotheotrendobyoreferringotootheovariousojudgmentsoandointeroaliaoheldo asounder:-oo "2.o Shouldo ano ordero ofo reinstatemento automaticallyo followoinoaocaseowhereotheoengagementoofoaodailyowagero hasobeenobroughtotooendoinoviolationoofoSectiono25-Foofo theo Industrialo Disputeso Act,o 1947o (foro shorto "theo IDo Act")?oTheocourseoofotheodecisionsoofothisoCourtoinorecento yearsohasobeenouniformoonotheoaboveoquestion.o

3.o Ino Jagbiro Singho v.o Haryanao Stateo Agricultureo Mktg..Board,odeliveringotheojudgmentoofothisoCourt,ooneo ofouso(R.M.Lodha,J.)onoticedosomeoofotheorecentodecisionso ofothisoCourt,onamely,oU.P.StateoBrasswareoCorpn.oLtd.o v.o UdayNaraino Pandey,o Uttaranchalo Foresto Developmento Corpn.o v.o M.C.o Joshi,o Stateo ofo M.P.o v.o Lalito Kumaro Verma,o M.P.o Admno v.o Tribhuban,o Sitao Ramo v.o MotiLalo Nehruo Farmerso Trainingo Institute,o Jaipuro Developmento Authorityo v.o Ramsahai,o GDAo v.o Ashoko Kumaro ando Mahboobo Deepako v.o Nagaro Panchyat,oGajraulaoandostatedoasofollows:o(JagbiroSingho case,oSCCopp.330o&o335oparaso7o&o14).o "7.o Ito iso trueo thato theo earliero viewo ofo thiso Courto articulatedo ino manyo decisiono reflectedo theo legalo positionothatoifotheoterminationoofoanoemployeeowaso foundotoobeoillegal,otheoreliefooforeinstatementowitho fullobackowagesowouldoordinarilyofollow.oHowever,o inorecentopast,othereohasobeenoaoshiftoinotheolegalo positionoandoinoaolongolineoofocases,othisoCourtohaso consistentlyo takeno theo viewo thato reliefo byo wayo ofo reinstatementowithobackowagesoisonotoautomaticoando mayo beo whollyo inappropriateo ino ao giveno facto situationo eveno thougho theo terminationo ofo ano employeeo iso ino contraventiono ofo theo prescribedo procedure.oCompensationoinsteadooforeinstatemento hasobeenoheldotoomeetotheoendsoofojustice.o

14.o Ito wouldo be,o thus,o seeno thato byo ao catenao ofo decisionsoinorecentotime,othisoCourtohasoclearlyolaido downo thato ano ordero ofo retrenchmento passedo ino violationoofoSectiono25-Foalthoughomayobeosetoasideo butoanoawardooforeinstatementoshouldonot,ohowever,o automaticallyopassed.oTheoawardooforeinstatemento withofullobackowagesoinoaocaseowhereotheoworkmano haso completedo 240o dayso ofo worko ino ao yearo precedingo theo dateo ofo termination,o particularly,o daily-wagersohasonotobeenofoundotoobeoproperobyo thiso Courto ando insteado compensationo haso beeno awarded.oThisoCourtohasodistinguishedobetweenoao dailyo wagero whoo doeso noto holdo ao posto ando ao permanentoemployee."o

4.o Jagbiro Singho haso beeno appliedo veryo recentlyo ino TelegraphoDeptt.ov.oSantoshoKumaroSeal,owhereinothiso Courtostated:o(SCCop.777,oparao11)o "11.oInoviewoofotheoaforesaidolegalopositionoandotheo facto thato theo workmeno wereo engagedo aso dailyo wagerso abouto 25o yearso backo ando theyo workedo hardlyoforo2ooro3oyears,oreliefooforeinstatementoando backowagesotoothemocannotobeosaidotoobeojustifiedo ando insteado monetaryo compensationo wouldo subserveotheoendsoofojustice."o

18.o o ItoisoworthwhileotooreferotootheodecisionoofoBSNLovsBhurumal,o 2014(3)oSCTo49;oowherein,otheoApexoCourtohasoclearlyoheldothatowhenothereo isoviolationoofoSectiono25-FoofotheoAct,o1947otheoreinstatementowithofullo backo wageso iso noto automatic,o theo workmano shouldo beo giveno monetaryo compensationowhichowillomeetotheoendoofojustice.oTheoHon'bleoSupremeo Courtoobservedasounder:o-oo "35.o Weo would,o however,o likeo too addo ao caveato here.o Thereomayobeocasesowhereoterminationoofoaodaily-wageo workero iso foundo too beo illegalo ono theo groundo ito waso resortedotooasounfairolabouropracticeooroinoviolationoofoGURPREET KAUR theoprincipleoofolastocomeofirstogooviz.owhileoretrenchingo suchoaoworkerodailyowageojuniorsotoohimowereoretained.o Thereomayoalsoobeoaosituationothatopersonsojuniorotoohimo wereoregularizedounderosomeopolicyobutotheoconcernedo workmano terminated.o Ino sucho circumstances,o theo terminatedoworkeroshouldonotobeodeniedoreinstatemento unlesso thereo areo someo othero weightyo reasonso foro adoptingotheocourseoofograntoofocompensationoinsteadoofo reinstatement.o Ino sucho cases,o reinstatemento shouldo beo theoruleoandoonlyoinoexceptionalocasesoforotheoreasonso statedotoobeoinowriting,osuchoaoreliefocanobeodenied."o o o TheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoinoaoplethoraoofocasesohasodirectedo compensationoinolieuooforeinstatement.oReferenceocanobeomadeotooMahboobo Deepakov.oNagaroPanchayat,oGjraula:o(2008)o1oSCCo575,oSitaoRamov.o MotiLaloNehruoFarmersoTrainingoInstitute:o(2008)o5oSCCo75,oGDAov.o AshokoKumar:o(2008)o4oSCCo261.oo

19.o o Theoperusaloofotheoaboveojudgmentsomakesoitoclearothatonewo establishedo trendo iso grantoofo compensationoinolieuoofo reinstatement.o Theo orderooforeinstatementocanobeograntedoonlyoinoexceptionalocases.oo

20.o o Inotheopresentocase,otheocessationotookoplaceoino2013oafterotheo petitionerohadoworkedoforo20oyearsoandothereoisonothingoonorecordotooshowo thato sheo waso appointedo aftero followingo dueo selectiono processo oro aso pero properoprocedure.oItohasoalsoocomeoonorecordothatotheopetitioner-workmano wasonotoqualifiedotoobeoappointedoasoAssistantoClass-IVoemployee.oItohaso alsoonotobeenoshownothatoprincipleoofo`lastocomeofirstogo'ohasobeenoviolated.o Aroundo 10o yearso haveo lapsedo sinceo theo serviceso ofo petitionero wereo terminatedoinotheoyear,o2013.oInotheseocircumstances,oIoconsiderothatoordero foro re-instatemento (ino CWP-902-2019)o mayo noto beo passedo ino thiso case.o However,otheocompensationoawardedobyolearnedoTribunalobelowoisotootheo loweroside.oInomyoconsideredoview,ointerestsoofojusticeowouldobeometoifotheoGURPREET KAUR compensationoisoenhanced.oThus,othisoCourtoawardsocompensationoinotheo sumoofoRs.o5olakhs,otoobeopaidotootheopetitioner/workwomanowithinooaoperiodo ofo eighto weekso fromo theo dateo ofo receipto ofo certifiedo copyo ofo thiso order,o failingowhichotheoamountoshallobeopaidowithoanointeresto@o6%operoannum.oo

21.o o Inoviewoofotheodiscussionomadeohere-in-above,otheoAwardodatedo

16.10.2018o(AnnexureoP-10)opassedobyolearnedoPresidingoOfficer,oIndustrialo Tribunal,oPatialaoinoCWP-902-2019,ostandsomodifiedoaccordingly.oo

22.o o Accordingly,o theo presento petitiono (CWP-902-2019)o standso disposedoofoinoafore-statedoterms.o

23.o o Allopendingoapplicationso(ifoany)oshallostandoclosed.o CWP-6483-2014o o o Soo faro aso thiso petitiono CWP-6483-2014filedo byo petitioner-BachnioDevi,oseekingoaowritoinotheonatureoofocertiorarioforoquashingotheo ordero datedo 02.05.2012o (Annexureo P-13);o wherebyo theo claimo foro regularizationoofoheroservicesohadobeenorejectedobyotheoDistrictoEducationo Officero(SE)oPatiala,oisoconcerned;osinceoitohasobeenoobservedohere-in-aboveo inoCWP-902-2019othatoorderofororeinstatementomayonotobeopassedoinosuchoao case;othusotheoquestionooforegularizationoofoservicesoofotheopetitioner,oaso claimedobyoheroinotheopresentopetition,odoesonotoarise.o

2.o o Accordingly,otheopresentopetitionoi.e.oCWP-6483-2014ofiledobyo theo petitioner,o seekingo hero regularizationo iso dismissed,o ino viewo ofo ordero passedoinoCWP-902-2019ohere-in-above.o

3.o o Ao photocopyo ofo thiso ordero beo placedo ono theo fileo ofo anothero connectedocase.o thOctobero12 ,o2023o o o o o (HARSHoBUNGER)o gurpreeto o o o o o o o JUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:o o Yes/Noo Whetheroreportable:o o o Yes/No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP-6483-2014 (O&M) BACHNI DEVI …Petitioner Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. …Respondents (2) CWP-902-2019 (O&M) Date of decision :12.10.2023 BACHNI DEVI …Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT LABOR COMMISSIONER, PATIALA, DISTRICT PATIALA AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Narender Singh Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab.