KANSHI RAM VERMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the Municipal Committee, Mansa and quashing an award made in favour of the appellant Kanshi Ram Verma by the Labour Court, patiala.

(2.) The appellant was appointed by the Municipal Committee, Mansa to the post of Sectional Officer on a temporary basis. The appellant entered upon his duties on 4th September, 1974. He was required to furnish a certificate from a recognized University that he had passed a Diploma examination in Engineering and also an affidavit that he was not a dismissed employee. The Municipal Committee alleges that he did not file the requisite certificate and affidavit and consequently his services were terminated, The appellant disputed the validity of the termination of his services. Accordingly, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala, and on 4th August, 1977 the Labour Court made an award that the termination was illegal and it directed the reinstatement of the appellant and payment of Rs. 200/- as compensation. The Municipal Committee challenged the award in a writ petition before the High Court. About the same time the appellant also filed a writ petition contending that he was entitled to full back wages. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a learned single Judge by a judgment dated 16th November, 1979. He allowed the writ petition filed by the Municipal Committee and quashed the award. The writ petition by the appellant was dismissed. His Letters Patent appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on 20th May, 1980.

(3.) The Labour Court found that the appellant had produced a certificate redarding his qualifications before the Executive Officer, and the copy of it filed by him had been compared with the original document by a Clerk and had been signed by the Executive officer in token of his having received the certificate. On the point whether he was a dismissed employee, he was permitted to file an unattested declaration by the Executive Officer that he had on his own initiative given up his earlier employment in the Military department and the Jakhal Municipal Committee. In regard to the Matriculation certificate, he stated that it had been lost. The Labour Court accepted the allegations of the appellant in regard to the fulfilment of the requisites for employment, and it noted that neither the Executive officer nor any other responsible officer of the Municipal Committee had appeared before it to rebut the allegations made by the appellant. Holding that the appellant had complied with the necessary formalities the Labour Court found that the termination of his services was not justified. Accordingly, it made an award in the terms mentioned earlier.