RAJWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of recovery of Rs.2,50,000/-, the loss alleged to have been caused by the petitioner by his negligent conduct in making an admission before the Labour Court, while tendering evidence as management witness. The alleged negligent evidence attributed to the petitioner was that he had admitted before the Labour Court in a proceeding initiated by a workman Rajinder Singh challenging an alleged illegal termination.

(2.) To a charge-sheet levied against him, the petitioner had contended that during the relevant period, he was not even In-charge of the Market Committee as a Secretary but he had known about the fact that an application had been filed under Section 33-C(2) by the workman Rajinder Singh against the Management claiming wages that included the period from 01.04.1988 to 30.04.1990. The order had been passed by the Labour Court upholding the claim of the workman, when the Management had remained ex parte. The Labour Court held that it was established that the workman had worked with the Management and that his statement that he had not been paid wages for the said period (01.04.1988 to 30.04.1990) stood unrebutted. It appears, the Management sought to assail the order before the very same Labour Court and they failed in their attempt.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that it was not as if it was the petitioner's evidence before the Labour Court that was responsible for securing an adverse order of a direction for reinstatement. The Management had already suffered an order for a claim for wages on the basis of the claim by the workman that he had worked during the relevant period and the Management's own attempt to assail the same was not successful. The order of reinstatement subsequently made when the termination order was issued could not be therefore taken as a mere consequence of wrong admission by the petitioner but the first blame has to be borne by the Management itself in allowing the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) to go undefended and when the Court had found that the workman's service from 01.04.1988 to 30.04.1990 had been an established fact.