CWP No.12645 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12645 of 2014 Date of decision:04.07.2014 District Food & Supplies Controller, Railway Road, Palwal (Haryana) ....Petitioner Versus Harveer ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the petitioner.
***** G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral) 1.
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad whereby, in an ex parte award, the respondent-workman has been held entitled for reinstatement along with continuity of service, as per terms and conditions of his service before termination with 20% of back wages, on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') have not been complied with.
2.
A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that as per the demand notice raised by the workman, he was employed as a PR Chowkidar on 01.12.2009 by the petitioner-Department for 89 days.
He was removed from service on 26.04.2011, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act and accordingly, a demand notice was served on 02.05.2011.
On the matter being referred to the Labour Court, same set of allegations were raised and the petitioner-Department was proceeded against ex parte on 01.02.2012.
The writ petition for setting aside the said order was dismissed on 23.05.2013.
The workman produced Exhibits W1 to W12 to show that he worked from May, 2010 Sailesh ranjan 2014.07.08 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.12645 of 2014 -2- till February, 2011 and the Labour Court has recorded a finding that he had worked from 10.04.2009 to 25.04.2011, i.e., for a period of 361 days and held that the workman had completed the prescribed period as provided under Sections 25-B & 25-F of the Act.
It was also noted that the practice of appointing persons for 89 days has been depreciated by this Court in Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh & others versus Baljinder Singh & another 2006 (109) FLR366and accordingly, the reference was answered in favour of the workman, as noticed above.
3.
Above findings are findings of fact and nothing has been brought on record to show that even when the notice was served under Section 2-A of the Act, the petitioner-Department had rebutted the claim of the workman on a legally sound ground as it has now been pleaded for the fiRs.time in the writ petition that the workman had left the job on his own.
The Labour Court has also taken into consideration the failure report dated 07.09.2011 submitted by the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Palwal and has restricted the relief of back wages only to the tune of 20% for the period of approximately little over 2 yeaRs.to which, the workman was entitled.
In such circumstances, this Court of the opinion that there is no tenable ground on which this Court can interfere, keeping in view the fact that this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal, especially once the petitioner-Department failed to file even the written statement and the order striking off of its defence has also been upheld by this Court.
4.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
04.07.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE Sailesh ranjan 2014.07.08 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document