IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 14418 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 16.09.2009
Jaswant Singh
... PETITIONER
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The workman has filed the instant petition challenging the
Award dated 4.5.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby the reference
made by the Government against the termination of the service of the
petitioner has been answered against him.
Before the Labour Court, it was the stand of the petitioner that
he had worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding his termination,
therefore, his termination by the Management without following the
procedure under Rule 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Act’) was illegal and the petitioner was entitled for
reinstatement with back wages. On the other hand, the respondent-
Management took the stand that the petitioner has worked from 7.2.1991 to
CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -2-
30.9.1991 i.e. less than 240 days, therefore, he was not legally entitled to the
protection of Section 25-F of the Act and his termination was fully justified.
In this regard, issue No.1 was framed and the following finding has been
recorded by the Labour Court :
“It is common case of the parties that the workman was
appointed as Trade Made w.e.f. 7th February, 1991 for 89 days
on daily wages. He continuously worked with the respondent-
management beyond 89 days. The burden was on the workman
to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termination. The case of the workman is that he worked
with the respondent-management up to 15th October, 1991
whereas the case of the management is that he worked with the
respondent-management up to 30th September, 1991. MW1
tendered his affidavit Ex.M-1 in lieu of examination-in-chief
and deposed to that effect. In paragraph 2 of the statement of
claim, the workman has pleaded that he was paid wages up to
30th September, 1991. Had the workman worked beyond 30th
September, 1991 then he would have been paid wages for that
period. No document is proved by the workman that he worked
with the respondent-management beyond 30th September, 1991.
MW-1 stated in the cross-examination that there was no
attendance register at tubewell but there was log book at
tubewell wherein shift duties were being made and signed by
the employees who are on shift duty. He further stated that he
had not brought the log book for the month of September and
October, 1991 as the same was not available with the
respondent-management because that record was available with
erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, Union
Territory, Chandigarh. The workman did not make any effort to
CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -3-get the said record from erstwhile Notified Area Committee,
Manimajra, proved. There is no dispute that the workman was
appointed by Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, the
workman should have made efforts to get record proved from
Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. Now the said Notified
Area Committee is merged with Municipal Corporation
Chandigarh. The workman was required to summon the
concerned official to prove the said record. Admittedly, he was
paid wages only upto 30th September, 1991. In the absence of
documentary evidence, I am of the view that it cannot be said
that the workman worked with the respondent-management
beyond 30th September, 1991. The workman has failed to prove
that he worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of his
alleged termination i.e. 30th September, 1991. Thus the services
of the workman were not terminated illegally by the
respondent-management. Accordingly, this issue is decided
against the workman.”
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the aforesaid finding is
wrong and contrary to the record. It is stated that during the proceedings
before the Labour Court, the petitioner moved an application for directing
the management to produce the attendance register containing the names of
the workmen for the months of September/October, 1991, wherein all the
employees including regular, temporary, work charge and daily wage
workers who were required to mark attendance in the office before going to
their work place. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not make
any effort to get the said record available from the erstwhile Notified Area
Committee, Manimajra.
CWP No. 14418 of 2009 -4-
After hearing the learned counsel and going through the
impugned Award, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed on record any zimni
order or any order passed by the Labour Court to the effect that the said
application was ever filed and any order passed on the same. With the
instant writ petition, the petitioner has not annexed any record, which
indicates that at any point of time, he insisted for production of the record by
the erstwhile Notified Area Committee, Manimajra. It is the admitted
position that the petitioner was paid wages only upto 30.9.1991. No record
was produced by him to prove that he worked for a period beyond 30.9.1991
and made any application to the authorities for non-payment of the wages
for the said period. In absence of any material/proof by the petitioner-
workman, in my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he worked for 240
days in a year preceding the date of his alleged termination. In my opinion,
no interference is required by this Court, in the said finding of fact.
Dismissed.
September 16, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE