Workman Must Not Be Punished For Devoting Time Before Wrong Forum Based On Misconception Or Ill-Advice: Punjab And Haryana High Court

The High Court held that time spent in proceedings before the civil court would not count towards the period of limitation. Further, the workman should not be punished for devoting his time before the wrong forum as usually it is based on some misconception or ill-advise.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner (“Workman”) was employed as a 'Chowkidar' by the Director of Social Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh, from 31.12.1985 to 18.08.1987, when he was allegedly terminated illegally and arbitrarily without adherence to the Industrial Disputes Act's provisions. He filed a complaint for reinstatement with full back-wages, stating that there was a violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

In response, the Management argued that the Workman was appointed for a temporary period as a Chowkidar, and his termination coincided with the filling of the regular Chowkidar post, rendering his services unnecessary. Additionally, it argued that the Workman initiated a civil suit against the termination, later withdrawn after seven years.

The decision of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, UT Chandigarh centred on the maintainability of the reference, stating Workman's prior civil suit. Despite the civil court decree in the Workman's favour, the Tribunal held that the reference was not maintainable due to the lack of permission to withdraw the suit and pursue a remedy under labour law. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (“High Court”) and challenged the decision of the Tribunal.

The Workman argued that although he initially sought relief in the civil court, he withdrew the suit to seek remedy under labour law during the pendency of the appeal.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to adequately address the genuineness of the industrial dispute referred to it. It noted that the Tribunal did not delve into the industrial dispute, and instead, considered the Workman's approach to the Civil Court. Upon examination of the statements made before the Civil Court, the High Court held that the issue raised through the demand notice fell under the purview of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 10(1)(C) of the ID Act. It observed that the workman initially succeeded in the civil court, but upon appeal, faced a question of the suit's maintainability, prompting him to withdraw to seek remedy under the ID Act.

Furthermore, the High Court held that the period during which the civil suit was pending should not be detrimental to the workman's interests, especially considering the legislative provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This provision allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings before a court without jurisdiction when computing the period of limitation for a suit. The High Court interpreted the statements made before the Civil Court and the subsequent order as implying permission to file the suit under the ID Act. Therefore, the High Court held that the Tribunal's finding of non-maintainability was erroneous.

Additionally, the High Court emphasized the need for a more holistic approach to justice, considering the factual aspect of the case, particularly the completion of 240 days of working, which warrants adherence to Section 25-F of the ID Act regarding notice and retrenchment compensation. Since the management failed to take appropriate steps in terminating the workman's services, the High Court held the termination to be in violation of the ID Act.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the award and allowed the writ petition. However, acknowledging the age of the dispute, which spanned over 36 years, the High Court directed the management to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the workman within three months. Failure to comply would result in the management being liable to pay the compensation amount along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.

Case Title: Gopal Krishan vs State of Punjab and Others

Case Number:CWP-17945-1997 (O&M)

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rohan Garg (as Amicus Curiae)

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal

Click Here To Read/Download order