State of Punjab vs Kulwant Masih

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the State of Punjab challenging the Award dated 18.11.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, reinstating respondent No. 1-workman.

In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the workman was paid for the work done against the acquaintance roll for the period shown as under :-

6-92 (25.6.92 to 30.6.92), Rs, 291,00 6 days 7-92 (1.7.92to31.7.92),Rs.l457.00 31" 8-92 (1.8.92to28.8.92),Rs. 1316.00 28" 9-92 (1.9.92 to 30.9.92),Rs. 1457.00 30 " 10-92 (1.10.92 to 15.10.92),Rs. 705.00 15" 5-93 (1.5.93to31.5.93),Rs. 1509.00 31 " 6-93 (1.6.93 to 30.6.93), Rs. 1509.00 30 " 7-93 (1.7.93 to 31.7.93), Rs. 1578.00 31 " 8-93 (1.8.93 to 31.8.93), Rs. 1578.00 31 " 9-93 (1.9.93 to 30.9.93), Rs. 1578.00 30 "

It is also stated that the workman left the job on the completion of work for which he was never engaged after 30.9.1993. However, the workman filed a demand notice u/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur for adjudication u/s 10(1)(c) of the Act.

After completion of the pleadings the Labour Court framed the following issues :-

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

Relief.

The petitioners raised an objection before the Labour Court that respondent No- 1-workman had not completed 240 days service in a calendar year. It is also stated that he was engaged for a short period for a specific work. Therefore, he cannot claim continuity of service. The Labour Court, however decided issue No. I against the petitioners and in favour of the workman and reinstated him with continuity of services with 25% back wages from the date of the reference till reinstatement.

Mr. H.S. Sran, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the petitioners-State of Punjab, vehemently argued that petitioners had filed an application before the Labour for additional evidence. Initially, when the representative of the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court, he was not in possession of the entire record. The petitioners, therefore, wanted to produce the relevant record on a subsequent date but the request was illegally denied by the Labour Court. Learned counsel further argued that respondent No. 1 -workman had not completed 240 days service, therefore, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

From a perusal of the dates given by thepetitioners in paragraph 4 of the writ petition itself, it becomes evident that respondent No. 1-workman had completed 240 days in the year preceding the termination of his services. Further more, the Labour Court has recorded findings of fact. These findings are based on the evidence which was placed on record before the Labour Court by the parties. No interference is called for in the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I find no infirmity in the impugned Award.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.