Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989
Date of Decision:15.12.2008
The Dabwali Dhab, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society
Ltd., Dabwali Dhab, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot
.....Petitioner
Vs.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been preferred by the Dabwali Dhab,
Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dabwali Dhab under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated
7.2.1989 Annexure P.5.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that there was a
strike in the year 1981. Several employees whose services were terminated
resorted to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
brevity, `the Act’). Kashmir Singh- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as
`the workman’) who was similarly situated also switched over to such
proceedings and ultimately, an award was passed by the Labour Court on
Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -2-
23.1.1984 vide which the termination of his services was held to be illegal
and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages. He instead of
taking any steps to resume duty, resorted to the coercive measures for
execution of the award. By approaching the authorities under the Act, he
got a recovery certificate. In pursuance thereof, he was given Rs.8,435/-.
Again, he was given another sum of Rs.7572.79 on 25.5.1988. He was
requested number of times to join his duty, but he failed to do so. He took
up the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding
Officer, Labour Court passed the impugned order, which is liable to be
quashed in view of the grounds embodied in this petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Bathinda with due care and circumspection.
Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner urged with great eloquence that the impugned order is liable to be
quashed as per the reasons given in the petition.
As against this, Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate representing the
workman argued that indeed the impugned order has been implemented and
now the Society is bent upon to recover the amount mentioned therein
unlawfully.
I have well considered the rival contentions.
The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the impugned
order dated 7.2.1989 has observed as under:-
“The workman has deposed that he submitted the joining
report copy of which is Ex.W/3 to the employer in May, 1984
Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -3-and that the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Moga had
written a letter, copy of which is Ex.W/2 to the respondent.
This document shows that the employer had failed to
implement the award in-spite of several requests of the Labour
Inspector Moga and was called by the Labour-cum-
Conciliation Officer Moga on 24.4.84. The workman deposed
that the respondent had appeared before the Labour-cum-
Conciliation Officer Moga and said that they would consider
joining duty to the workman. The dues till the date of the
award were recovered by a recovery certificate in 1987
(Ex.W/4, W/5). The workman testified that the employer told
him, when he went to the respondent society that they would
think over giving him duty. This indicates that the employer
did not intend to avail of the services of the workman, when
offered.
There is no evidence to the contrary. I, therefore, hold
that the workman is entitled to wages from the date, he had first
offered his services to the employer after the award i.e.
30.5.1984 onwards. The wages have been claimed till July,
1988. At the rate of Rs.487/- p.m., the dues work out to
Rs.23895.50ps. The issue is decided accordingly and the
application is accepted to that effect with costs quantified in the
sum of Rs.100/-.”
To my mind, no view contrary to the above findings can be
taken as the same are based on documentary evidence apart from law.
Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -4-
Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere therewith in the exercise of
writ jurisdiction. As such, this petition being devoid of any merit is
dismissed.
December 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE
Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No