Randhir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1090524
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-18-2013
AppellantRandhir Singh
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 date of decision:-18.09.2013 randhir singh .....petitioner versus state of haryana and others .....respondents coram :- hon'ble mr.justice satish kumar mittal. present:- mr.bahadur singh, advocate for the petitioner. mr.anjum ahmed, addl. ag haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. **** satish kumar mittal, j.(oral) the workman has filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 20.1.2009 (annexure p-8) passed by the labour court, ambala, whereby the reference sought by the petitioner with regard to termination of his services has been decided against him while holding that the workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year prior to the date of termination of his services, therefore, the management was not required to comply with the provisions of section 25-f of the industrial disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').i have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award. undisputedly, the petitioner was employed as fitter by the kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 -2- general manager, haryana roadways, charkhi dadri, on 8.12.1993, on emergeny duty, on daily wage basis due to strike. he worked during the period of strike and his services were terminated on 1.1.1994. again the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 28.7.1995 at yamuna nagar where he had worked up to 31.8.1995. third time the petitioner was engaged as helper on 3.9.1996 by the general manager where he has worked upto 30.9.1996. it is the case of the petitioner that on 1.10.1996 the petitioner was verbally told that his services were no more required. thereafter the petitioner filed cwp no.15893 of 2000 which was disposed of on 13.12.2004 while passing the following order: “the facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged during the strike by the workers of the haryana roadways in the month of december, 1993 as fitter. thereafter vide annexure p-2, the petitioner was absorbed. it appears that his services were later terminated. thereafter, he worked with the haryana roadways as helper on purely daily wages for a period from 3.9.1996 to 30.9.1996 and then he was no longer in service. in this writ petition, he has prayed that he be reinstated on the post of fitter and be absorbed. this petition had been directed to be taken up along with cwp no.14623 of 2000 titled manavir singh versus state of haryana and that writ petition has been disposed of today after taking into consideration the order of the hon'ble supreme court in civil appeal no.316 and 317 of 2004 decided on 16.1.2004. since this petition also pertains to the employees, who had been engaged during the strike by the workers of the haryana roadways, in kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 -3- the month of december, 1993, this petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in view of the orders dated 16.1.2004 of the hon'ble supreme court and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months.”. in pursuance of the said direction the claim of the petitioner was considered and ultimately vide order dated 15.3.2005, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by respondent no.3 by passing a speaking order, while observing as under: “after going through the orders passed by hon'ble high court and hon'ble supreme court your case has been carefully considered by the undersigned and the same is hereby rejected on the grounds that as you were appointed as helper daily wages on 27.7.1995 vide office order no.14.9.1995, as per instructions relevant to the workers appointed during strike period but you remained absent from duty willfully after 30.8.1995 and again you were taken on duty vide order dated 25.9.1996 as you had again moved an application on 29.8.1996 for appointment. but you had again absented yourself willfully from duty w.e.f.13.10.1996 and thereafter you did not present for performing duty but filed the present writ petition. after going through your service record, your case for reinstatement does not come within the order passed by hon'ble supreme court of india dated 16.1.2004.”. instead of challenging the said order the petitioner raised industrial dispute by issuing demand notice and thereupon the haryana government vide notification dated 15.1.2007 referred the following dispute to the labour court for its adjudication:- kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 -4- “whether the termination of services of workman randhir singh is justified or not ?. if not, to what relief is he entitled to?.”. the labour court after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, decided the said reference against the petitioner, and it was held that since the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in the last 12 preceding calendar months before the date of his termination, the management was not required to comply with the provisions of section 25-f of the act. before the labour court the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that he never abandoned the services as no such finding in this regard was recorded by the labour court in favour of the petitioner. the petitioner neither challenged the order (dated 15.3.2005) of rejecting his representation before the appellate authority nor raised this issue before the labour court. before the labour court the only issue was whether the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the management or not?. the issue with regard to absorption of the workmen engaged during the strike period was not raised before the labour court. therefore, the said issue was also not considered by the labour court. the only issue raised before the labour court was answered against the workman while recording a finding that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year prior to the date of his termination. undisputedly, the petitioner-workman had worked for three different periods i.e.from 8.12.1993 to 1.1.1994, from 28.7.1995 to 31.8.1995 and from 3.9.96 to 30.9.96. in view of the said fact, it has rightly been concluded by the labour court that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the last preceding kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh c.w.p.no.9885 of 2009 -5- calendar months prior to the date of his termination. hence, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned award. dismissed. ( satish kumar mittal) judge1809.2013 reema/vkg kumar vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 Date of Decision:-18.09.2013 Randhir Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.

Present:- Mr.Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl.

AG Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

**** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The workman has filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the reference sought by the petitioner with regard to termination of his services has been decided against him while holding that the workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year prior to the date of termination of his services, therefore, the Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award.

Undisputedly, the petitioner was employed as Fitter by the Kumar Vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 -2- General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Charkhi Dadri, on 8.12.1993, on Emergeny Duty, on daily wage basis due to strike.

He worked during the period of strike and his services were terminated on 1.1.1994.

Again the petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 28.7.1995 at Yamuna Nagar where he had worked up to 31.8.1995.

Third time the petitioner was engaged as helper on 3.9.1996 by the General Manager where he has worked upto 30.9.1996.

It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.10.1996 the petitioner was verbally told that his services were no more required.

Thereafter the petitioner filed CWP No.15893 of 2000 which was disposed of on 13.12.2004 while passing the following order: “The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged during the strike by the workers of the Haryana Roadways in the month of December, 1993 as Fitter.

Thereafter vide Annexure P-2, the petitioner was absorbed.

It appears that his services were later terminated.

Thereafter, he worked with the Haryana Roadways as Helper on purely daily wages for a period from 3.9.1996 to 30.9.1996 and then he was no longer in service.

In this writ petition, he has prayed that he be reinstated on the post of Fitter and be absorbed.

This petition had been directed to be taken up along with CWP No.14623 of 2000 titled Manavir Singh versus State of Haryana and that Writ petition has been disposed of today after taking into consideration the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.316 and 317 of 2004 decided on 16.1.2004.

Since this petition also pertains to the employees, who had been engaged during the strike by the workers of the Haryana Roadways, in Kumar Vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 -3- the month of December, 1993, this petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in view of the orders dated 16.1.2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months.”

.

In pursuance of the said direction the claim of the petitioner was considered and ultimately vide order dated 15.3.2005, the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.3 by passing a speaking order, while observing as under: “After going through the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court your case has been carefully considered by the undersigned and the same is hereby rejected on the grounds that as you were appointed as Helper daily wages on 27.7.1995 vide office order No.14.9.1995, as per instructions relevant to the workers appointed during strike period but you remained absent from duty willfully after 30.8.1995 and again you were taken on duty vide order dated 25.9.1996 as you had again moved an application on 29.8.1996 for appointment.

But you had again absented yourself willfully from duty w.e.f.13.10.1996 and thereafter you did not present for performing duty but filed the present writ petition.

After going through your service record, your case for reinstatement does not come within the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.1.2004.”

.

Instead of challenging the said order the petitioner raised industrial dispute by issuing demand notice and thereupon the Haryana Government vide notification dated 15.1.2007 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for its adjudication:- Kumar Vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 -4- “Whether the termination of services of workman Randhir Singh is justified or not ?.

If not, to what relief is he entitled to?.”.

The Labour Court after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, decided the said reference against the petitioner, and it was held that since the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in the last 12 preceding calendar months before the date of his termination, the Management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

Before the Labour Court the petitioner did not lead any evidence to prove that he never abandoned the services as no such finding in this regard was recorded by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner neither challenged the order (dated 15.3.2005) of rejecting his representation before the Appellate Authority nor raised this issue before the Labour Court.

Before the Labour Court the only issue was whether the services of the workman were illegally terminated by the Management or not?.

The issue with regard to absorption of the workmen engaged during the strike period was not raised before the Labour Court.

Therefore, the said issue was also not considered by the Labour Court.

The only issue raised before the Labour Court was answered against the workman while recording a finding that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding calendar year prior to the date of his termination.

Undisputedly, the petitioner-workman had worked for three different periods i.e.from 8.12.1993 to 1.1.1994, from 28.7.1995 to 31.8.1995 and from 3.9.96 to 30.9.96.

In view of the said fact, it has rightly been concluded by the Labour Court that the workman had not worked for 240 days in the last preceding Kumar Vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P.No.9885 of 2009 -5- calendar months prior to the date of his termination.

Hence, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned award.

Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE1809.2013 reema/vkg Kumar Vinay 2013.09.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh