IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1589 of 1990.
Date of Decision : January 28, 2009.
Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh. .... Petitioner.
Versus.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh,
and another. .... Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate,
for the respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In this petition, the challenge is to the award dated 12.09.1989
(Annexure-P-3), passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the workman was
appointed on 89 days basis and he continued as such therefore, reinstatement
in view of the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act
cannot be ordered. He submits that even if it is held that the workman has
completed 240 days but still Section 25-F of the Act could not be attracted
and reinstatement would not be in accordance with law. He further contends
that the workman would not be entitled to any back wages for the period
which has been granted by the Labour Court as there was no assertion on
behalf of workman that he was not working during the intermittent period,
whereas 70% back wages have been granted by this Court which is illegal.
C.W.P. No. 1589 of 1990. -2-
Counsel for the respondent, however, contends that since the
workman has completed 240 days with the petitioner as this is an admitted
fact and further in view of the fact that the workman was appointed on 89
days basis but the work on which he was working continued till even after
the termination of services by the petitioner, therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb)
would not be attracted. He further submits that the back wages have been
rightly granted to the respondent and therefore, no interference by this
Court is called for.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the
award impugned herein. Perusal of the award would clearly show that the
assertion of the workman that the work existed even after the expiry of the
alleged term of his appointment has gone un-rebutted and that being the
position, the assertion of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that
it would be covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act and
therefore, the finding that the workman would be entitled to protection of
Section 25-F of the Act, cannot be interfered with.
The only question left for consideration, therefore, is whether
the workman would be entitled to 70% back wages which has been granted
by the Labour Court in favour of workman. The workman has not asserted
that he has not worked for the period for which he has been granted back
wages, before the Labour Court. Had he made a positive assertion to this
effect, the award would have been quite justified. In the absence of such
assertion by the workman or any evidence on record which would
substantiate this aspect of the matter would have been enough to justify the
grant of back wages as has been granted to the workman.
C.W.P. No. 1589 of 1990. -3-
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the
award qua grant of 70% back wages, therefore, cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside.
It would not be out of way to mention here that while
admitting this writ petition, this Court had ordered the stay of back wages
but the workman was held entitled to join back in service and accordingly,
the workman did join the service on 01.08.1990 and continued as such till
he expired on 28.02.2005. He left a widow and a son who were dependent
on him. Since the workman had continued to work with the petitioner
during the pendency of the present writ petition, therefore, legal heirs
would be entitled to all other consequential benefits as per the award
except back wages.
The present writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
January 28,2009.
sjks.