Judgment:
CWP No.8761 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :
19. 2.2013 Executive Engineer, Bridge Construction Division and another ...Petitioners Versus Saffik and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA PRESENT: Ms.Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Manruchi Randhawa, Advocate for respondent no.1 ...Notes:
1. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not?.
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?...RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The Public Works Department (B&R).Haryana is the petitioner before this Court questioning the correctness of the award dated 15.7.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, UT Chandigarh in reference No.185/2002 dated 15.7.2010.
The Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and granted 30% back- wages to the respondent workman from the date of termination i.e.31.12.1999.
The brief facts are that the respondent-workman was appointed as a CWP No.8761 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Peon on daily wages on 3.2.1997.
He had worked for about three years before his services were terminated without following due procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”.) inasmuch as no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid at the time of termination of services.
To establish his case, the workman appeared as his own witness as AW-1.
He reiterated his pleadings in the demand notice which was treated as statement of claim.
He examined AW-2 Paras Ram, Care Taker.
The workman stepped again into the witness box to lead secondary evidence as well.
The Management did not lead any evidence after contesting the case by filing written statement.
In the written statement, it was broadly stated that the workman was employed on daily wages and had voluntarily abandoned service.
He was employed as a Beldar against non-sanctioned post on the basis of exigencies of work from time to time.
The workman did not turn up to work after 25.9.1997 after having worked only 145 days during the year 1997.
It was admitted that the services of the workman were not governed under the Civil Service Rules.
The Management did not produce any document in support of its contention in the written statement.
The Labour Court permitted the workman to lead secondary evidence vide order dated 1.9.2008.
The workman produced copy of attendance sheet Ex.W2 showing his name at Sr.No.3.
His presence was marked in October, November and December, 1997.
Ex.W3 is the copy of attendance register for 12 months during 1998 showing his attendance.
Ex.W4 is set of copies of attendance sheets from January, 1999 to July, 1999.
His presence was marked up to 30.7.1997.
The workman produced further exhibited documents which prove that he was running errands on requisition of the Management till 24.12.1999.
This secondary evidence has CWP No.8761 of 2011 (O&M) 3 been considered by the Labour Court to reach the conclusion that there is sufficient proof on record that the workman had actually worked up to December, 1999 and not for 145 days up to 25.9.1997 as contended by the Management in its written statement.
On this material, the Labour Court has falsified the stand of the Management in its written statement and has ordered reinstatement.
The Management argued before the Labour Court that the documents produced by the workman were neither authenticated not genuine and they were collected unauthorizedly.
The genuineness of the documents produced in evidence by the workman by way of secondary evidence which was allowed by the Labour Court has been made subject matter of controveRs.before the Labour Court.
Neither any evidence has been produced by the Management to controvert the documents led in secondary evidence not was an application moved to set aside the order closing evidence.
That order was not called in question in any judicial forum superior to the Labour Court.
In the view of this Court the inference drawn by the Labour Court on the material produced by the workman is legally sustainable.
Findings have been returned by the Labour Court after appreciating direct oral evidence and secondary evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the workman had put in 240 days of service prior to disengagement and there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act at the time of retrenchment.
Violation of Section 25-F of the Act would lead to reinstatement, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma versus Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat, 2010 (3) SCT 318.Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 19.and Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584.
CWP No.8761 of 2011 (O&M) 4 The view taken by the Labour Court is a possible one and plausible too and it is not for this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court on the basis of appreciation of whatever evidence was available on record.
The Management could not have advantage of its silence in producing record.
Therefore, this writ petition deserves to fail.
It is accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner-Management would remain at liberty to recover 30% of the back-wages from erring officials who failed to produce evidence and participated in closing the evidence, without leading any evidence, oral or documentary.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 19 2.2013 MFK