EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. LEKH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Lekh Raj in Civil Appeal No. 5310 of 2003 claimed that he was appointed by the appellant as Beldar on 1.12.1994 and his services were terminated with effect from 31.08.1995. Since his demand was not conceded by the appellant a dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The said Labour Court by its award dated 3.08.2000 came to the conclusion that the respondent had put in 240 days of continuous service under the appellant. This finding is based on the muster rolls produced by the respondent workman which was not rebutted in any manner by the appellant. On the said basis since the appellant did not comply with the requirement of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act it held that the termination of the appellant is in violation of law, hence directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant management had not produced any material to disprove the evidence produced by the respondent. The writ petition filed against the said award by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana came to be dismissed on the ground that the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent workman has worked for 240 days, was a question of fact which was established by the said workman, hence there was no merit in the writ petition.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal and perused the award as well as the judgement of the High Court. From the award we notice that so far as the workman is concerned he has produced muster rolls for the relevant period which indicated that the workman did work continuously from 1.12.1994 to 31.08.1995 and the appellant management did not produce any material from its side to rebut the same on such factual background we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

(3.) In Civil Appeal No. 5311 of 2003 the respondent Sikander Singh raised a dispute on the ground that he was working with the appellant from 1.02.1993 to 14.12.1996, on which date his services were terminated without complying with the requirements of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his contention that he has been working continuously during the said period he examined himself and reiterated the claim made by him in his claim petition. From the award it is seen that even though he was cross-examined, no question was asked in regard to the period of his working with the appellant management. We find management witness MW 1 Sukdev Singh in his examination admitted that the workman therein had worked from 1.02.1993 to 13.09.1996 which supports the case of the workman. On the said basis the Labour Court by its award dated 3.08.2000 allowed the claim of the respondent workman and directed his reinstatement with full back wages.