CWP No. 11099 of 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11099 of 1999
Date of decision July 30, 2009
Shri Ram s/o Sh. Sartu Ram
....... Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and
others.
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. R. K. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary , Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
K. Kannan, J(oral).
1. The petitioner challenges the award rejecting the
claim for reinstatement to the post of Conductor in the Transport in
Haryana Roadways. The Labour Court while considering the claim of the
workman held that he had offered his stint of service at Chandigarh when
he was relieved on 20.9.1989 and later when he joined at Sonepat on
31.12.1989, he was retained in services up to 15.10.1990, held accepting
the contention of the Management that he had not joined at Sonepat and
the documents produced by him were not acceptable. The workman had
relied on joining report at Sonepat and the original had also been filed that
had been signed by the Duty Inspector Ishwar Singh. The doubt which the
Labour Court entertained was that the Duty Inspector had himself not
signed beneath his signatures. The Labour Court doubted that the Duty
Inspector had been authorized by the Manager to let him serve as a
Conductor at Sonepat. The identity card which was relied on by the
CWP No. 11099 of 1999 2
workman that he had been working at Sonepat and he had also been
issued with the identity card was not believed by the Labour Court since
only the photocopy of the document had been filed and the original had not
been filed.
2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner would state that the Management itself did not produce the
records for the relevant time on a plea that the records had been burnt and
therefore,the failure to produce the records ought not to be adversely
commented upon. If there was a justification for the Management not to
produce records, then it becomes possible for the workman to rely on
secondary evidence that would include concedes his oral statement and
photocopy of document. The documents which the Labour Court relied
on, coupled with the oral testimony of the workman ought to have been
accepted as credible evidence in the absence of primary evidence which
the management could have produced they were not produced or became
impossible by the fact that the documents had been burnt, secondary
evidence was permissible in law. Learned counsel for the State contends
that the petitioner did not have any consistent case even with reference to
the pleadings of his employment. He would submit that in evidence of the
workman he had stated that after he was relieved at Chandigarh on
20.9.1989 he had joined at Kalka while in the claim statement and the
documents relied on by him, it referred to his re-joining at Sonepat. While
the matter of intervention on a factual consideration may not at all times be
permissible, this Court shall see whether there has been a miscarriage of
justice by rejecting the documentary evidence and veracity of documents
and whether it was unjustified in the absence of original records which had
been lost, even the oral evidence placed by the workman. If the workman
had stated that he had worked at Sonepat and he was permitted to join by
Ishwar Singh, Duty Inspector and he had also signed the document, the
CWP No. 11099 of 1999 3
Labour Court could not have placed the burden further on the workman to
establish the same by examining the Sub Inspector. After all he was an
employee of the Management and the evidence must have been secured
by the Management to discredit the joining report or the identity card that
he had produced.
3. I, therefore, reject the finding of the Labour Court
that he had not joined at Sonepat and he had not completed 240 days of
service. By a proper reckoning from the date when he joined at Sonepat
from 5.1.1989 to 15.1.1990 with two intervals and considering again the
number of days when he had worked within 12 months prior to 15.10.1990,
he had completed 240 days and therefore, termination of service without
following the procedure under Section 25-F was unjustified. Even for non-
compliance with the statutory requirement,of Section 25-F, the workman
cannot still have the benefit of reinstatement, in view of the fact that in
matters of public appointment governed by specific rules relating to
recruitment, it was not possible to direct reinstatement unless he had a
right to the post. Admittedly he had been engaged as a daily rated worker
and his engagement was purely temporary and fortuitous. Under the
circumstances, appropriate relief for the workman to compensate for the
non-compliance of notice under Section 25-F would be by directing the
respondent-Management to give a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the
workman. It shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of the order failing which the said sum shall carry simple
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The award of the Labour Court is
set aside and modified to the extent indicated above.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 30, 2009
archana