Punjab State Electricity Board vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The crux of the combination of the facts and evidence, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that workman Major Singh-Respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the workman") was employed as daily wage worker by the management of Petitioner-Punjab State Electricity Board (for short "the management of PSEB").

The workman claimed that he has put in 51/4 years of service, but his services were wrongly terminated on 25.8.1989 by the management of PSEB. In the wake of an industrial dispute raised by the workman, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Labour Court (in short "LC"), in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

The case set up by the workman, in brief in so far as relevant, in his statement of claim (Annexure P2), is that he has put in 51/4 years of service, but his services were wrongly terminated on 25.8.1989, without issuing any notice, charge sheet, holding any inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 550-60 P at the time of his disengagement by the management of PSEB. The impugned termination order was stated to be arbitrary, illegal and against the statutory provisions of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the workman challenged his termination order and claimed his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages in the manner depicted hereinabove.

The management of PSEB refuted the claim of workman and it was pleaded in its written statement that his services were duly terminated after issuing one month''s notice and paying him the retrenchment compensation u/s 25F of the Act. It will not be out of place to mention here that the management of PSEB has denied all other allegations contained in the statement of claim (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal.

In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the Presiding Officer of the LC framed the following issues for adjudication of the case:

Whether the reference is bad in law as alleged?

Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified and in order?

Relief.

The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective stands, produced the evidence on record. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the LC accepted the claim of the workman, decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the management of PSEB and reinstated him with continuity of service. However, the claim of back wages was denied to him, by means of impugned award dated 27.7.1992 (Annexure P4).

The Petitioner-management of PSEB did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned award (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia pleading that although it has sent the retrenchment compensation as required u/s 25F of the Act, but the same was returned by the workman. Therefore, he was not entitled for reinstatement as well. The claim of management of PSEB was contested by the workman.

It is not a matter of dispute that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the matter was placed and the Panel of Lok Adalat of this Court passed the following order on 26.5.1999:

No one appears on behalf of the management Petitioner. In its absence, no compromise can be effected. The workman-Respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court. In the absence of any impediment laid down in proviso Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman is entitled to payment of wages during the period of pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. Learned Counsel for the workman states that he shall move an application in this regard before the Hon''ble High Court.

The matter shall, therefore, go back to the High Court for its decision on merits.

The learned Counsel has fairly acknowledged that the management of PSEB did not pay the wages to the workman in this respect.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, going through the record and relevant provisions of the Act with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context.

Ex facie, the argument of learned Counsel for management of PSEB that since the services of workman were disengaged after payment of retrenchment compensation u/s 25F of the Act, so, he was not entitled to be reinstated, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well and deserves to be ignored for more than one reasons.

At the first instance, no material, much less cogent, is forth coming on record to prove that the management of PSEB has actually sent the retrenchment compensation or it was refused by the workman. No doubt, Rakesh Chander, Head Clerk of the management of PSEB, while appearing as MW1 (Annexure P3) has stated, on oath, that the workman has refused to accept the compensation sent by registered envelope as per report mark A on Ex.M3. But no implicit reliance can be placed on his self serving statement, because the management of PSEB did not produce any person from the Postal Department to prove that the registered envelope was actually sent by it (management of PSEB) and it was actually refused by the workman. So much so, the refusal report mark-A has not been legally proved in this respect. Hence, it is not proved by cogent evidence that the management of PSEB had sent the amount of compensation or it was refused by the workman.

Not only that, the case of workman from the very beginning (statement of claim Annexure P2) was that he has put in 51/4 years of service with the management. He was drawing the monthly salary of Rs. 550-60P when his services were illegally terminated by the management of PSEB on 25.8.1989, without payment of any retrenchment compensation. On the contrary, the management of PSEB claimed that the workman has worked for 624 days and retrenchment compensation was paid to him. It is so stated by MW1 in his statement (Annexure P3), but he could not stand the test/scrutiny of cross-examination, wherein, he has admitted that the presence of the workman started since 1983 and has been marked up to 24.8.89 with breaks. He has not brought any record to prove the breaks in service of the workman. Above-all, the management of PSEB did not produce the attendance record of the workman at any stage of the trial.

That means, the management of PSEB has withheld the best possible evidence of engagement of workman from 1983 to 1989 for the reasons best known to it and in that eventuality, a legal adverse inference is inevitable against it, which would corroborates the claim (Annexure P2) of the workman that he has put in continuous service of about five years. Even otherwise, as the management of PSEB did not pay the workman the entire compensation as per the period of his continuous service (five years), therefore, his termination would not only be arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of Section 25F of the Act as well. In this manner, the contrary arguments of learned Counsel for management of PSEB "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.

Thus seen from any angle, to me, the management of PSEB has miserably failed to prove that it has paid the entire amount of compensation, as envisaged u/s 25F. In the absence of the same, the termination of workman incomplete violation of the mandatory provisions, is not only arbitrary and illegal, but against the statutory provisions of the Act as well. Therefore, the reinstatement of workman by the LC is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.