Satish vs Presiding Officer and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

C.M. No. 15324 of 2014

Application is allowed as prayed for.

The statements of management witnesses Joginder Singh, Clerk and Jag Bhushan, Sub Divisional Engineer at Annexure P-7 (colly) are taken on record. CWP No. 22551 of 2014

The instant petition is directed against the award dated 21.7.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and he has not been held entitled to any relief.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the finding recorded by the Labour Court as regards the workman having not served for 240 days in the preceding calendar year taken from the date of termination, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the relevant record had not been produced by the management/employer. In support of such contention, Counsel would even advert to the deposition of Jag Bhushan, Sub Divisional Engineer and who in his cross-examination had stated that while working out the working days of the workman at Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-5 the record of Rohtak Division No. 1 has not been noticed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that no basis for interference in the impugned award is warranted.

The statement of claim put forth by the petitioner-workman stands appended as Annexure P-1 along with the instant petition and his stand was that he had been engaged w.e.f. 5.1.1991 as Beldar on daily wage basis and had worked continuously till 7.1.2000, whereupon his services had been terminated verbally and without issuing any notice, wages in lieu of notice period or any retrenchment compensation. On the other hand, the claim of the workman was resisted on behalf of the management/employer stating that the petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis on 12.6.1993 and had served upto August, 2000 but with heavy breaks of service in between. It was further contended on behalf of the management that the workman had thereafter left the job of his own accord.

Perusal of the impugned award would reveal that the Labour Court upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record in the shape of Ex. W-1 to W-5 and Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-5 has recorded a finding of fact that the workman had worked only for 18 days in the 12 preceding months i.e. from April, 1999 till August, 2000. As such, it has been concluded that the petitioner workman having not rendered continuous service of 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination i.e. 7.1.2000 as claimed by the petitioner himself, the protection of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not available to him.

This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not act as a Court of Appeal and go into the question of sufficiency and adequacy of evidence led before the Labour Court. Such issues are within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

Even the mileage sought to be drawn by the Counsel by adverting to the deposition of Jag Bhushan, Sub Divisional Engineer as regards the record of Rohtak Division No. 1 having not been noticed while working out the details of the working days of the workman/petitioner, is without merit.

The statement of claim submitted by the petitioner at Annexure P-1 does not contain any assertion as regards him having served with Division No. 1, Rohtak.

Even otherwise, during the course of hearing it stands conceded by learned Counsel that no evidence had been adduced by the petitioner before the Labour Court to substantiate the factum of having rendered 240 days continuous service in the 12 preceding calendar months taken from the date of termination i.e. 7.1.2000. It is also conceded that the workman had not even filed an application in the Labour Court in terms of which the management/employer had been called upon to produce the relevant record for the period in question. Clearly the initial onus that was upon the workman himself had not been discharged to claim protection and compliance of the mandate of section 25-F of the Act. For the reasons recorded above, no infirmity is found in the impugned award dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure P-4). Writ petition is consequently, dismissed.