LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-50

KRISHAN LAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS ROHTAK

Decided On October 04, 2010
KRISHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, ROHTAK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 21.7.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the management-Respondent Haryana Roadways. Accordingly, the award dated 18.3.1992 (P-4) passed by the Labour Court has been set aside. It is appropriate to mention that the Labour Court in its award has held that the workman-Appellant remained in service of the Haryana Roadways- Respondent from 8.10.1985 to 30.9.1986 with certain breaks. The total period of working days was calculated, which came to 218 days and, therefore, the management was not required to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act'). However, the Labour Court by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Gurdaspur, 1998 80 FLR 762, has held that the termination of the workman-Appellant was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice. Answering the reference in favour of the workman-Appellant, he was ordered to be reinstated with all service benefits.

(2.) Learned Single Judge has found that in the absence of completion of 240 days, no inference of unfair labour practice could be drawn. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from paras 5 and 6, which reads thus:

(3.) Mr. Deepak Sonak, learned Counsel for the workman-Appellant has argued that the findings of the Labour Court with regard to unfair labour practice could not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge on the premise that the workman-Appellant did not complete 240 days. According to the learned Counsel there are categorical findings recorded by the Labour Court that the workman-Appellant was employed from 13.5.1984 to 8.11.1984, 9.11.1984 to 31.1.1985 and from 18.5.1985 to 30.9.1986. According to the learned Counsel, during the earlier period in 1984 to 1985 the workman Appellant had rendered service for more than 240 days but after a gap of 31/2 months he was re-employed and on completion of 218 days, his services were again dispensed with, which has to be regarded as unfair labour practice. In support of his submission learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), which has in fact been relied upon by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192, it has been reiterated that the social welfare legislation like the Industrial Disputes Act, are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goal set out in the preamble of the Constitution and provisions contained in Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure social order for promotion of welfare of the people ensuring equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good.