CWP No.2990 of 2001 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2990 of 2001
Date of Decision 25.11.2009
Raja Ram ..... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
2. CWP No.3063 of 2001
State of Punjab ..... Petitioner
V/s
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bathinda & another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN.
Present: Mr.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
***
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The Award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement is the
subject of challenge at the instance of Management in CWP No.3063 of
2001. The workman has filed CWP No.2990 of 2001 for back-wages
denied to him. The contention of the workman was that he was
continuously engaged in service of Management from 01.10.1976 till he
was terminated on 31.03.1988. The written statement was laconic in that it
merely stated that the workman had not worked during August, 1988 and
that he had actually only 199 days of service. Since the termination was
illegal according to the workman and the Management has contended that
he had only 199 days of service, at the directions of the Court, the witnesses
produced the attendance register which showed that the workman had
CWP No.2990 of 2001 -2-
worked for 341 days during 12 months prior to August, 1988. Even a
particular month when it was denied that the workman was not working, the
document produced by the witnesses betrayed the falsity of the contention
of the Management and proved that the workman had worked also in
August, 1988.
2. According to the Management witnesses, no notice or
compensation had been given and hence the Court found that there had
been a violation of statutory provision of Section 25(F) and directed
reinstatement. The learned counsel contended that there was no proof that
the workman was working from 1976. It was also contended that the
workman did not have a permanent job and therefore, the provision for
reinstatement was not tenable. Both the contentions, in my view, are not
correct, for the Court was inclined to direct the production of record from
the Management for the period which in its view was relevant for
determination whether workman had 240 days of continuous service prior to
termination from service. Records for the previous years were not produced
and if 240 days of continuous service prior to termination from service was
seen as the relevant period for consideration to decide whether the
termination was proper or not, the non-production of records of earlier years
were of no consequence. Again, the issue whether the workman had been
offered any permanent job was also irrelevant, unless it was to be examined
whether the contract of employment provided for a particular period or was
contingent on the happening of any event which would itself terminate the
service and qualify for an exception as provided under Section 2(oo) (bb)
and whether the termination operated not as retrenchment for the person to
claim the benefit under Section 25F. That was not the contention of the
CWP No.2990 of 2001 -3-
Management. The conclusions on both counts viz., the number of days of
service and the effect of the termination in contravention of Section 25F to
deserve the relief of reinstatement are therefore correct.
3. There was an averment in the claim statement that the workman
had been unemployed but the Labour Court has completely denied the back
wages. If a person who was working as a Chowkidar, which is not a skilled
employment, some work should have been available to fend for himself for
daily necessities. The rejection of full back wages cannot also be accepted,
since the termination effected was not due to any misconduct or any act that
could be attributed against the workman. If the termination was bad the
workman could not be wholly denied the wages for the period when he was
forced not to work. The workman shall be entitled for 50% back wages.
4. Civil Writ Petition No.3063 of 2001 titled State of Punjab V/s
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another is dismissed. Civil Writ
Petition No.2990 of 2001 titled Raja Ram V/s State of Punjab and others is
partly allowed for 50% back wages as directed. However, there shall be no
orders as to costs.
25.11.2009 (K.KANNAN) shamsher JUDGE