'No One Can Be Left Remediless' Is Backbone Of Indian Constitution, Astonished How Worker Was Deprived Of Remedy For 20 Yrs: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Observing that it is astonishing "how for more than 20 years a workwoman has been deprived to avail an appropriate legal remedy",the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Labour Court to decide a plea challenging the oral termination order passed in 2003. The petitioner approached three different forums, but she was left remediless each time.Justice Sanjay Vashisht said, "this...
Observing that it is astonishing "how for more than 20 years a workwoman has been deprived to avail an appropriate legal remedy",the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Labour Court to decide a plea challenging the oral termination order passed in 2003. The petitioner approached three different forums, but she was left remediless each time.
Justice Sanjay Vashisht said, "this Court cannot shut its eyes to ignore the beneficial legislations framed by the Legislatures for poor segment of the Society of the country. The basic backbone of the Constitution of India is that “no one can be left remedy less”."
The Court said, "In true sense, right from the year 2003, all the three Forums have, in fact, left the petitioner/workwoman on the mercy of nobody, and in a way remedy less also."
"None of the orders, i.e. passed by the CAT, the CGIT-LC (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Cour) or the Labour Court, touches the principles of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or refers to the same. If the dispute raised by the petitioner/workwoman was not to be adjudicated upon by these Forums, at least a poor workwoman could be guided or suggested to avail her remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act..." it added.
These observations were made while hearing the plea filed by one Anita, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Ambala in 2015, whereby her claim for reinstatement in service, in terms of the reference referred to it for adjudication, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , had been declined on the ground of barred by the 'principle of resjudicata'.
Anita was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator-cum-Sales Girl in the month of November, 1998, in the Golden Line Canteen, Defence Cinema, Ambala Cantt., under the Central Stores Department, Ambala Cantt. Without regularizing her services, the workwoman was terminated on 21.08.2003, by an oral order.
It was argued that as per SOPs, the workwoman was required to be served with one month's notice and also an opportunity before termination of her services. However, at the time of termination, neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation was paid to her.
The Labour Court opined that once the workwoman lost her matter before the CAT, again the same issue could not have been re-agitated by her before the Labour Court.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "unfortunately, the petitioner/workwoman is fighting for her rights, right from the time of her termination from service, i.e. 21.08.2003. On one pretext or the other, may be under ill guidance of the concerned, she has been deprived from getting the legal right decided from a Court of Law."
There cannot be any denial that the very purpose of enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is to protect the rights of labour class people, so that the tenure of employment may not be exploited with high handedness or arbitrary conduct of the employer, institute or establishment, the Court added.
Justice Vashisht highlighted that "no such adjudication has taken place in the last more than 20 years, though, the petitioner/workwoman has approached to three different Forums from time to time."
"This Court has no hesitation to observe that her claim could not be addressed or adhered properly under the correct provisions of law," the judge added.
The Court noted that when the petitioner first approached CAT in 2004, it dismissed the plea stating that her appointment was on humanitarian grounds only.
"Surprisingly, nothing has been observed by the CAT, whether action of...management is justified or unjustified, at least by examining the aspect whether the principles of natural justice, i.e. affording the opportunity of hearing etc., have been complied with or not," it added.
In the second round of litigation before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the plea was dismissed on the ground that the workwoman is an employee of the Unit Run Canteens are not a government servant.
In the third attempt, the plea was dismissed by the Labour Court , on the ground that it had already been decided by CAT and "the Labour Court declined to answer the reference, without adjudicating the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner/workwoman on its merits," noted the Court.
"This Court is surprised to see that on the record, no finding has ever been recorded by any Judicial Forum to the effect that once the workwoman is held to be not a Central Government employee, by following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.R. Pillai (supra), how the order dated 20.01.2004..., passed by the CAT, can be said to be valid one, and sustainable in the eyes of law. Rather, the proceedings before the CAT have to be treated as 'Coram non judice', for all intent and purposes," it observed.
Justice Vashisht opined that, "action of termination of the services, so far as case of the petitioner/workwoman is concerned, is worth to be examined on its merit. And, for the purpose of its examination, the whole exercise is to be done by the Labour Court, whereas it has declined to entertain the industrial dispute in question...by saying that the same is barred by the principle of res judicata."
In light of the above the Court allowed the plea and seaside the order passed by the Labour Court.
While allowing the pea, the Court directed the Labour Court to decide the reference within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties observing that "Since already the petitioner/workwoman is awaiting the decision on law qua sustainability of the termination order, for the last two decades, any kind of further delay in final adjudication of the reference, would amount further enhancing the miseries and agony of the workwoman."
R.K. Arora, Advocate, and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Vipan Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2
Ms. Anita v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 163