State of Haryana vs Mahabir Singh

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the State of Haryana for quashing the award dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure P.7) passed by respondent No. 2, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-La-bour Court, Rohtak, by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction.

The petition has been filed through District Food and Supply Controller, Rohtak, as respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ''the workman'') was engaged as a Chowkidar on daily wage basis for the watch and ward of wheat temporarily stored at Jhajjar against a temporary work charged post on 19.9.1985. The workman remained continuously on duty till 19.9.1986. For this period there is no dispute between the parties. However, it is the case of the workman that he continued to work upto 31.12,1986, the date after which he was not allowed to work. He, therefore, served the demand notice on 16.5.1991 before thee Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Rohtak. This demand of respondent No. 1 was not accepted by the appropriate Government. The workman moved an application for review of the order and the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Rohtak, recommended to the Government to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the industrial dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''), to the following effect :-

"Whether the termination of services of Mahabir Singh is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

The parties appeared before the Tribunal. After pleadings were completed, the following issues were framed :-

As per terms of reference ?

Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present claim ?

Whether the claim statement is not maintainable in the present form ?

Whether the department/management is not covered under I.D. Act ?

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present claim ?

Whether the present claim is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties ?

Relief.

The parties led evidence. The workman appeared in the witness box as WW. 1. One Wazir Singh, Section Officer appeared as MW. 1, M.R. Madan, Section Officer appeared as M W. 2. After appreciating the entire evidence, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 4.9.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no explanation given by the workman for five year''s delay in the service of the demand notice.

I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the award oh issue No. 1 clearly shows that even as per the statement of MW. 2 M.R. Madan, it was accepted that the workman had worked continuously from 19.9.1985 to 19.9.1986. The dispute was only as to whether the workman continued in service upto 31.12.1986. The petitioner (management) did not adduce any evidence to prove that the workman remained absent on any day during the period from 19.9.1985 to 19.9.1986. It was on this basis that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was held that the workman had completed 240 days prior to the date of his removal from service. It has also been observed that admittedly neither notice was served nor any salary regarding period of notice was paid to the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The Tribunal also came to the proper conclusion that abandonment of service is a question of intention. This has to be proved by the petitioner. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no evidence has been produced by the petitioner-management to substantiate that the workman had abandoned the job. The Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioner has also held that he was not employed in a seasonal capacity. In fact, the Tribunal also held that Mahabir Singh workman worked upto 19.9.1986. He had also worked in all the seasons, therefore, he could not be said to be a seasonal employee. I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.