STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KASHIMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case, is Punjab Government-Respondent No. 1 Kashmir Singh had served a demand notice on the Punjab Government claiming that he had been working with the management on a monthly salary of Rs. 1375/- for the last six years. He had claimed that his services were terminated on 25/10/1996 without payment of retrenchment compensation. The appropriate Government made a reference under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"), vide Endorsement No. D/24744-45, dated 19/06/1998. The reference was as follows: Whether termination of service of Sh. Kashmir Singh workman is justified in order? if not to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled? On 5/08/1999, an ex pane award was given by the Presiding Officer holding that the termination of the services of the workman was neither justified nor in order. The workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. the demand notice dated 25/10/1997. The award was duly published in the Government Gazette on 25/02/2000. On 8/06/2000, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award. This application has been dismissed by the Labour Court on 16/07/2001. Hence the present writ petition by the State of Punjab under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the setting aside of the original award dated 5/08/1998 and the subsequent order dated 16/07/2001.

(2.) It has been submitted by Mr. Saran that both the orders, are not sustainable in law. It is submitted that a perusal of the demand notice would show that it is bereft of any details which would be necessary for setting up the claim that the workman was ever employed by the management. It is a settled proposition of law that even for ex pane judgments, the claimant has to prove his case in accordance with law. We find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Saran. A perusal of the award dated 5/08/1999 shows that the Labour Court has relied only on the oral statement made by the workman. No documentary evidence has been produced by the workman in support of the claim. It was incumbent on the Labour Court to examine the evidence led by the workman, even for giving the ex pane award. A mere look at the demand notice would have shown that the workman had not given any details about the nature of work, place of work or duration of employment. The subsequent order dated 16/07/2001 is also not sustainable. Admittedly, there was some confusion as to why the management was not represented before the Labour Court. In fact, in its order, the Labour Court has noticed that RW 1 had admitted in the cross-examination that he was directed by the Superintendent to appear in some cases and not to appear in the other cases. It is also apparent that proceedings in a number of cases were being recorded on the same day. Therefore, the possibility of error cannot be ruled out.

(3.) We are of the opinion that the State deserves to be given a chance to put forward its defence. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 5/08/1999 and the order dated 16/07/2001 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after permitting the parties to file the necessary pleadings and to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas.