The Punjab State Cooperative Bank v. Presiding Officer

The Punjab State Cooperative Bank is before this Court assailing the award dated 05.06.2012 (P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Prayer for reinstatement has been turned down. The respondent-workman has been held entitled to Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

MW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that the workman served the Bank from September 1999 to 29.12.2004 as a part time employee. She was paid Rs.278/- per month. The workman was engaged for cleaning work at the Branch Office, Sector-37, Chandigarh. It is beyond cavil that the workperson was engaged to labour for an hour daily as a Sweeper. The Labour Court has correctly returned a finding that a part time employee also a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"); her services were terminated CWP No.1574 of 2013 without notice/payment of retrenchment compensation and without any enquiry with regard to deficiency in job performed; there was violation of the Act; Ex.W-3 leads to legitimate inference that the job of the workman was for a short duration everyday. The Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction and discretion by balancing out the equities in the light of violation of mandatory provisions of law and has taken the view that the relief in the present case should be moulded by awarding Rs.50,000/- as reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

In these circumstances, I find nothing unexceptionable in the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum payment in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in exercise of discretion in moulding the relief.

No ground is made out warranting interference in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is dismissed.

Nothing said in this order would be taken as an affirmance on the question of reinstatement which is left open since the workman is not before this Court challenging the award.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 25.01.2013 manju