Courts Must Refrain From Issuing Direction Of Absorption Or Regularization Of Workman's Services When He Is Irregularly Engaged Against Unsanctioned Post: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court reiterated that the Courts must refrain from issuing a direction of absorption or regularization of the services of a workman when he has been irregularly engaged against an unsanctioned post.
The Court was dealing with two writ petitions preferred against the award of the Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in an industrial dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noted, “This Court is bounded by the jurisprudence of the aforesaid judgment, which specifically directs that the Courts shall refrain from issuing a direction of absorption or regularization of the services of a workman when he has been irregularly engaged against an unsanctioned post.”
The Bench said that the workman, being a casual worker has worked with the Punjab National Bank (PNB), against an unsanctioned post, for a period of 1553 days, which is four and a half years approximately, the benefit cannot be extended to the workman in this case.
Advocate Swarnil Dey represented the petitioner while Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha represented the respondent.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent was engaged on an ad-hoc basis as a ‘sweeper’ in the PNB from September 1993 to December 1997. Thereafter, the Bank’s Branch Manager terminated the services of the workman in January 1998, subsequent to which the workman wrote a letter to the Chief Manager for allowing him to continue working in the said branch. Being aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal, seeking reinstatement of his services along with full back wages as he was wrongfully terminated without issuance of a notice of termination as mandated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA). Subsequently, the PNB raised an objection alleging that the same is not an industrial dispute as the respondent was not a workman under IDA.
The Tribunal held that the said termination was illegal and the workman was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. However, the Tribunal found no force in the claim of the workman seeking relief of regularization and thus, the same was decided in favour of PNB. Being aggrieved, the PNB filed a writ petition seeking setting aside of the award whereas, the workman challenged the award to the extent that findings of the Tribunal qua denying regularization to the workman may be set aside.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “On merits, it is observed that the workman was engaged by the PNB as a sweeper on an ad hoc basis in place of another workman namely, Sh. Ravinder Singh, and there is nothing on record to show that he was appointed with due process of recruitment. Moreover, it is also noted that he worked as a sweeper for a period of 1553 days, i.e., a total of 4 years and 3 months approximately, which is insufficient to be regularized as per the decision rendered in the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra).”
The Court therefore, held that the workman was not appointed by following the requisite procedure of recruitment and therefore, he is not entitled for the relief of regularization.
“Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the settled position of law, it is made out that the learned Tribunal rightly adjudicated the issue of regularization and the workman has been unable to put forth any material contention to contradict the findings of the learned Tribunal. In light of the same, it is held that this Court is satisfied with the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal and there is no illegality or errors of law of any kind which is apparent on the face of the record”, it added.
The Court concluded that a Writ Court shall refrain from interfering with the findings of the lower courts under Article 226 of the Constitution on merits as the same have been established under special legislation to adjudicate the dispute and a Writ Court does not sit in appeal to re-appreciate the evidence.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, modified the award, and directed the PNB to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the workman.
Cause Title- Punjab National Bank v. Manoj Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7993)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Swarnil Dey
Respondent: Advocates Barun Kumar Sinha, Pratibha Sinha, and Sneh Vardhan.
