Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.4.2014 The Divisional Forest Officer (Production).Kurukshetra and Others ..Appellants Versus Gurmeet Singh and Another ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.
Present: Mr.Vinod S.
Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants.
Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Civil Misc.
No.1325-LPA of 2014 In view of averments made in this application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 81 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.8.2013 affirming the award passed by the Labour Court, Ambala.
Vide that award, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of respondent No.1-workman along with continuity in service and payment of 50% back wages.
It has come on record that before his service was terminated, respondent No.1-workman had worked with the appellant-department for a period of about ten yeaRs.He joined service in the year 1998 on daily wage basis.
His service was terminated in the month of May 2000.
He approached the Labour Court and vide order dated 21.4.2004 he was Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.04.26 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 (O&M) 2 ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service.
In the year 2005 again, notice was issued for retrenchment of respondent No.1.
He approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.9873 of 2005 and order of retrenchment was stayed.
His service was again terminated on 7.1.2008 without giving any notice or payment of mandatory compensation as envisaged under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short “the Act”.).The respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute stating that before termination of his service, he had completed 240 days in service and his termination order, being violative to the above said provision, be set aside.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.
Both the parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence and on analysis thereof, it was found as a matter of fact that termination order was not justified and further that many juniors to the respondent No.1- workman were kept in service when his service was terminated.
It was found as a matter of fact that alleged act of remaining absent from duty which resulted into his termination was factually incorrect.
It was further stated that qua that allegation, no Inquiry was conducted and the workman was condemned unheard.
After perusing the evidence led by both the parties, it was observed as under in order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the Labour Court:- “9.
Keeping in view the arguments extended by both the parties, in my considered opinion the fact of the workman Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.04.26 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 (O&M) 3 being in service of the respondents as a daily wager and further his services having been terminated vide order dated 7.1.2008 (Mark-D) are admitted facts.
That a perusal of Mark-D reveals that the workman had been removed from service by alleging that he had absented from duty on 6.1.2008 without any intimation to the concerned authorities and the said order being punitive in nature, the respondents should have given the workman an opportunity of being heard and in the absence of which the said order is violative of the principles of natural justice.
10.
Now moving on to the contention regarding the workman having completed 240 days continuous service or not, the workman has in his claim statement as well as in his affidavit Ex.WW-1/A categorically stated that he had completed 240days continuous service in every calendar year and once when the workman has stated so, the onus then shifted on the respondents to have proved otherwise by bringing forward attendance register, muster roll etc.but no such document has been brought forward by the respondents inasmuch as MW-1 has in his cross-examination deposed that the department did not maintain any attendance record or muster roll pertaining to the workeRs.At this stage reliance is being placed on the following authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2010(2) RSJ184 Director Fisheries Terminal Division Versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda.
Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.04.26 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 (O&M) 4 11.
Keeping in view my observations above, in my opinion the termination order dated 7.1.20085 was illegal inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the workman or one month notice or salary in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation having been paid to the workman, as such the said termination order being in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman becomes entitled to reinstatement as prayed for.”
.
The appellants approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.17835 of 2013 which was dismissed on 16.8.2013.
The learned Single Judge by noting extract from evidence led by both the parties, rightly came to a conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days preceding the date of his termination.
The above fact was alleged by the workman before the Labour Court and in rebuttal MW.1 Manir Gupta simply said that the department does not maintain any attendance record or muster roll prepared for the daily wage workeRs.The above stand is palpably wrong and cannot be accepted.
It was further rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge that qua the allegation of remaining absent from duty preceding the date of his termination against the respondent No.1, no inquiry was conducted.
It has also come on record that before termination of his service, the workman had worked for about ten yeaRs.During above period, two times his services was terminated.
However, due to intervention of this Court, he was reinstated.
It appears that in the department somebody is after this poor employee and on account of abuse of poweRs.workman was Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.04.26 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.562 of 2014 (O&M) 5 unnecessarily dragged in litigation.
Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any infirmity in the order passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the learned Single Judge which would necessitate interference of this Court.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge April 21, 2014 “DK”.
Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.04.26 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document