(Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
State of Haryana and Others ________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Roshni Devi ______________________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2225-2226/2022, decided on August 3, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. On hearing learned counsel for parties, we find the impugned judgment unsustainable for more than one reason.
2. The primary reason is the earlier proceedings filed by the respondent numbered as CWP No. 7062/2008 in which a dual prayer was made :
a) regularization of the respondent having worked as a part-time sweeper for 18 years, and
b) reinstatement of the respondent in service with all consequential benefits.
3. Unfortunately, for the respondent that endeavour was not successful and by order dated 06.11.2008, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, opined against the respondent. It is noted that the case of the respondent was remitted for consideration and on the case being examined, it was found that the respondent could not be regularized in view of non availability of the post.
4. The aforesaid lis having been settled, in our view, there is no question of the respondent once again invoking the jurisdiction albeit now of the Industrial Tribunal by seeking to raise the industrial dispute on 04.02.2011. This was rejected on the ground that the demand notice was raised after a lapse of more than 5 years 2 months and thus was time barred. The said rejection was challenged before the High Court by filing another petition bearing No. CWP No. 11520/2011 which was disposed of by setting aside the rejection order and directing the appellants to re-consider the issue.
5. As a consequence of the aforesaid, vide order dated 28.03.2012, the appellants referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala, Haryana. That claim was contested but in terms of an award dated 14.01.2014, the relief was granted to the respondent opining that the termination was illegal and she was held entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service with 50% of back wages within two months from the date of the award.
6. The appellants filed writ petition bearing No. CWP No. 12801/2014, but that was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.03.2016. The LPA preferred by the appellants was however, dismissed on 21.01.2019. Thus the appellants are before this Court.
7. It is not disputed before us that the respondent was engaged as a part-time sweeper on Feburary, 1988 in the office of the Labour Inspector, Kurukshetra. She was engaged for only one hour per day on working days at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. No appointment letter was issued to her. In pursuance to the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide policy Circulars dated 01.02.1999 and dated 17.10.2002, a decision was taken on 01.01.2004 by the Labour Department that anxiliary services like security, sweeping/clearing etc. be engaged through contractors and the cadre of these posts may be considered as diminishing cadre with the regular post being abolished. Consequent to the policy decision dated 01.01.2004, one Smt. Surinder Kaur stated to have been posted as sweeper on a regular basis was transferred in the office of the appellant(s) and the services of the respondent was dispensed with.
8. It is not disputed before us that there were practically 3 rounds of litigation. The first was to recover the same pay benefits which were actually paid and that chapter was closed. The second was CWP No. 7062/2008 which has been discussed by us aforesaid along with prayers seeking regularization and reinstatement, which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition. It is in the third endeavour whereby the labour Department declined to refer the matter to Labour Court, an order was passed by the High Court which resulted in reference.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly contended that this matter could not have been re-agitated after the aforesaid writ petition was declined by the High Court and when the matter stood finally concluded against the respondent.
10. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the award of the Labour Court dated 14.01.2014, order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2016 and impugned judgment/order dated 21.01.2019/17.05.2019.
11. We however, feel that the respondent having worked for 18 long years albeit on a part-time basis with the Labour Department and the Labour Department having taken services for such a long time, she must be granted reasonable compensation. Despite some legal impediments in the way of the respondent, she cannot be left high and dry. It is in the given peculiar facts and circumstances that we consider it appropriate to grant a lump-sum compensation to the respondent which is quantified as Rs. 2 lakh to be paid to the respondent by the appellants within a period of two months from today.
12. The appeals are allowed in terms aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
———
