High Court raps UHBVN for arbitrary termination of workman

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 13

A petition filed by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (UHBVN) challenging an award in a workman’s favour has virtually gone awry. Dismissing the UHBVN’s plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reprimanded the organisation for acting in a completely arbitrary manner, leading to the termination of the workman’s services, forcing him to remain out of employment for approximately 38 years.

Rendered jobless for 38 years

• The case refers to workman Faquir Chand, who joined as a daily wage worker in May 1980 under the administrative control of petitioner-management (UHBVN) and continuously worked until May 1984
• However, his services were retrenched illegally, in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act
• The employees junior to him were retained in service and had now been regularised

“The management has acted totally in an arbitrary manner, which has resulted in the termination of service of workman Faquir Chand, who remained out of service for about 38 years,” Justice Sanjay Vashisth of the high court asserted.

The matter was placed before Justice Vashisth’s Bench after Ambala Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court found UHBVN in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act before holding Chand entitled to reinstatement in service with its continuity and 50 per cent back wages.

Chand’s stand in the matter was that he joined services as a daily wage worker in May 1980 under the administrative control of the petitioner-management and continuously worked until May 1984. However, his services were retrenched illegally, in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, due to the shortage of material and paucity of work. The Bench was also told that employees junior to the workman were retained in service and had now been regularised.

The management, on the other hand, contended that an opportunity was given to Chand to appear for an interview in 1988 when ‘fresh’ daily wagers were recruited. However, he could not clear the same and was not found suitable for the job as he did not possess the mandatory ITI diploma.

Justice Vashisth added: “It is a settled proposition of law that the senior cannot be placed at an inferior status without any substance, as it may cause a lot of humiliation to the senior employee. Three of the employees/workmen are already found to be junior. Therefore, on this score alone, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award.”

Justice Vashisth also referred to a Supreme Court judgment holding that the management must be made to understand and realise the pain and agony suffered by the workman, where the termination is not because of his fault and “a lot of humiliation has been suffered by him due to being out of service.”