Sher Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the workman has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 22.1.1999 vide which the reference was answered against him. Case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the respondent-Management on 1.11.1991 and worked as Labourer/Chowkidar. His services were terminated on 1.8.1992. He further contended that he completed 240 days in the last calendar year, prior to termination of his service. New appointment was made by the Management after his termination and, therefore, there is violation of provisions of Section 25F, 25G, 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Respondent-Management has taken up a stand that the appointment of the petitioner was made on contingency basis and the payment was also made from the said fund and that there was no relationship of Master and servant between them. Moreover, according to them, respondent is not an "Industry". They contended that petitioner joined service on 25.11.1991 and not on 1.11.1991. It has further contended that there is no termination order passed on 1.8.1992 and that the petitioner never worked after 30.6.1992. It is further contended that the petitioner has only worked for 218 days.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In paragraph 6 of this writ petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that document Mark ''A'' shows that he was on duty on 15.7.1992. Mark ''A'' is produced in this writ pelition at AnnexureP/4. It is a letter written by one Gurcharan Singh dated 2.7.92. It has been forwarded to Prof. Jagsir Singh for report. Thereafter, it is signed by Officer Incharge Class IV on the same date and forwarded to the pelitioncr, Kapur Singh, Pal Singh and Nachattar Singh for nothing. According to the Tetter, ever since the closure of the gate of the Colony, no Chowkidar has been posted at the gate to open the gate and other purposes and the stray animals are found in the ground throughout the day which enter the residence of Gurcharan Singh and damaged the plants. In the note below the letter, it has been mentioned that certain personnel will be posted on particular duties and petitioner is posted at Gate permanently for 4.00 PM to 8.00 PM and all the persons are directed to comply with their duties. This note, according to the petitioner, bears the endorsement to the petitioner and others and the endorsement of the petitioner is of 15th July. Relying on this document, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that service of the petitioner could not have been terminated w.e.f. the earlier date i.e. 30.6.1992 as contended by the respondents. Regarding this letter, in paragraph No. 6 of the petition, the parawise reply is very vague. It is as under.

"6. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the learned Labour Court has given the award after considering all the evidence and facts on file and therefore, the award is a valid one and not liable to be set aside."

There is no denial to the averment that the petitioner had made an endorsement on the letter, as alleged. The Labour Court has dealt with this in para No. 7 of the award. It has observed that when WW-1 Pal Singh was examined, he has not stated on oath regarding the period the petitioner had worked with the Management and he has not clearly stated as to by whom Mark ''A'' has been signed and even if the contention of the petitioner is taken to be correct, the fact that it was got noted on 15.7.92 goes against him as he has not been able to explain as to why he could not note the same prior to this date. We do not agree with the view taken by the Labour Court. If the petitioner''s service was already terminated on 15.7.1992, there was no need to get the instructions noted on that date.

Another interesting point in this case is that there is letter from the Director to the Principal of the respondent-Institution to the effect that sanction is given to employ the labourers provided they are not allowed to work for 240 days. This letter is dated 25.11.1991 (Annexure P/2). Annexure P/3 is a letter dated 1.7.92 which mentions termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.6.1992 (after noon). In the letter it is mentioned that the service is terminated in compliance with the instructions issued from lime to time. This shows that respondents were conscious enough to see that workman did not complete 240 days of service. In the case of The Kapurthala Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullndhur, reported as 1984(1) S.L.R. 435, cited by he counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that re-renchment of a workman whose conduct and work was satisfactory, close to his attaining a year''s continues service in order to frustrate his attaining rights un-der Chapter V-A of the Act amounts to an unfair labour practice.

In view of the evidence, there appears to be no reason to dis-believe the petitioncr''s say that he was ler-ninated on 1.8.1992. The fact that Anncxure P/4 sears his signature of date 15th July assumes importance.

The Labour Court has gone to consider the motive af the Management. It has observed as under:-

"....There is no motive established on the file as to why the management should depose against the witness in an arbitrary manner in this case. Even, in his statement, recorded in court, the workman has not staled that his service was terminated only to see that he does not complete 240 days..."

We do not find any substance in these observations.

It is also not shown that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period of forced un-cm-ployment.

Considering from all the angles, the say of the petitioner that he had worked for more than 240 days has to be accepted. This writ petition therefore, deserves to be allowed.

As a result, this petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages from the date of demand notice.

Petition allowed.