Gurmail Singh vs The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—Alleging that their services were wrongfully terminated, two persons, namely, Gurmail Singh and Gurdeep Singh raised the industrial disputes which were referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bathinda. Reference Nos. 632 of 1989 and 633 of 1989 were assigned. As far as the appellant-Gurmail Singh is concerned, in his case, reference number was 633 of 1989. The defence of the respondent/management was that the services of both these persons were not terminated by the respondents and they had abandoned their services. It was also stated that both the persons were daily wage workers who had not completed 240 days of service as on the date of alleged termination. The learned Labour Court decided both the references by one common award rendered on 17.12.1991. Insofar as case of Gurdeep Singh is concerned, the Labour Court held that he had abandoned the job on his own accord and, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief. As far as the appellant-Gurmail Singh is concerned, the Labour Court held that he had worked with the respondent/management continuously for more than 240 days which was proved on the ground that the lone witness of the management, namely, Amrik Singh had failed to deny the suggestion of the appellant/workman that he had worked with the respondent/management continuously for 240 days.

Insofar as finding on leaving the job voluntarily is concerned, the Labour Court referred to the statement of management witness Amrik Singh, who had categorically stated that appellant-Gurmail Singh left the job voluntarily on 27.03.1989. The Labour Court, however, stated that this statement was successfully rebutted by the appellant/workman while appearing as WW/1 when he stated that he had not left the job on his own, but was terminated by the management.

It is clear from the above that the statement of workman-Gurmail, Singh, who had stated that he had not left the job, but his services were terminated, as correct was accepted. However, no reason is given as to why the Labour Court was accepting the only testimony of workman-Gurmail Singh and discarding that of the management witness Amrik Singh. It is curious to note that, at the same time testimony of Amrik Singh qua Gurdeep Singh that he also left the job voluntarily on 05.05.1989 is accepted. It is for this reason that learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein and quashing the award qua workman-Gurmail Singh (appellant herein) as well, has stated that the findings are self-contradictory and perverse. Thus, we agree with the aforesaid observations of the learned single Judge.

That apart, the narration of facts noted above would show that even in respect of the assertion of the appellant/workman that he had worked for 240 days, that was accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that there was no rebuttal to the same. Law on this aspect is now clear. The burden is on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days. Apart from his oral assertion, there is nothing on the record to show that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. There is yet another aspect which cannot be glossed over. Even if we presume everything in favour of the appellant/workman, there may be facts coming on record that he was a daily wager who had hardly worked for 240 days and even if it is presumed to be a case of termination, it is only technical violation i.e. complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act i.e. payment of retrenchment compensation in lieu of one month''s notice. However, fact remains, as recorded by the learned single Judge, the writ petition kept pending before this Court for almost 20 years during which period the appellant got the benefit of orders passed u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, he has been granted the benefit of last drawn wages for a period of 30 days which itself is sufficient to dislodge further claim of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the latest judgment titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh C.A. No. 8415/2009 decided on 31.01.2013 has held that in such cases, reinstatement should not be given. Therefore, from any angle the matter is to be looked into, it is not a fit case for interference with the order passed by the learned single Judge.

Dismissed. In case, part of 17-B wages has not been paid, as contended by learned Counsel for the appellant, the balance amount shall be released within two months.