Municipal Council Chamba vs Hans Raj

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—The challenge is to the award Annexure P-1 dated 16.1.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, in Reference No. 2/10, whereby termination of the services of the respondent-workman has been held to be illegal being violative of the provisions contained u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the petitioner-Committee directed to reengage him forthwith with continuity and seniority from the date of his retrenchment, however, without back-wages. The legality and validity of award Annexure P-1 has been questioned, inter alia, on the grounds that the same being ex-parte is not based on the factual position and rather violative of the principal of natural justice. The petitioner had no opportunity to controvert the false claim made by the respondent-workman in the statement of claim Annexure P-2 and the evidence he produced by way of his affidavit Annexure P-3.

The respondent-workman had allegedly worked with the petitioner-committee only for 38 days in the year 1998 and abandoned the work in the month of March, 2002 at his own and without any intimation to the petitioner-committee and that he was never engaged in the year 1984. The petitioner further submits that either the impugned award be quashed or set aside or in the alternative the case remanded to the Tribunal below for disposal afresh, after taking on record the evidence on behalf of the petitioner-committee and affording an opportunity of being heard to it.

The order passed in this writ petition on the previous date reads as follows:

The petitioner will make available records pertaining to the engagement of the petitioner from the 1st day of his engagement in the Municipality.

Consequently, the Executive Officer of the petitioner-committee is present in person and has produced the record qua engagement of the respondent-workman. We have perused the same, which reveals that the respondent-workman had been working as a Beldar and continued as such till the year 2002. Although the petitioner-committee has taken the plea of abandonment of work by the respondent-workman voluntarily, yet without any substance, because had it been so and his services were not dispensed with by the petitioner-committee, there was no occasion for him to have approached the Labour Court. Not only this, but the petitioner-committee instead of challenging the award by filing the present writ petition before this Court would have complied with the award, because the only direction therein is qua reengagement of the respondent-workman, no doubt with continuity and seniority. When the other similarly situate persons, who had been working with the respondent-workman are still in job, as stated by learned counsel, representing the petitioner-committee at the bar on instructions from the Executive Officer of the petitioner-committee, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved in any manner whatsoever by the impugned award whereby the only direction issued is qua the reengagement of the respondent-workman from the date of his disengagement.

The document Annexure P-4 brought on record by the petitioner itself leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent-workman had continuously worked for a period of more than 240 days preceding 12 months of his disengagement. In view of such evidence brought on record of this petition by the petitioner itself, the only inescapable conclusion would be that there is violation of the mandatory provisions enshrined u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Since the plea of abandonment of work raised by the petitioner is already over-ruled, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned award, save and except that the respondent-workman shall now be reengaged by the petitioner- committee within a month from today, no doubt with continuity in service and seniority, however, in accordance with the record pertaining to the engagement of the respondent-workman, available and maintained in the office of petitioner-committee.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition though is dismissed, however, with modification of the impugned award to the extent that the petitioner-committee shall reengage the respondent-workman within one month from today, with continuity in service from the date of his disengagement and seniority, strictly in accordance with the record, pertaining to his engagement available in its office. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly in limine, so also the pending application(s), if any.