STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Letters Patent Appeals have arisen out of adjudication of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13742 and 13744 of 1999 vide judgment dated 26.4.2012 rendered by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court. As facts and issues involved are the same, both these appeals have been taken up together. These appeals pertain to two workmen viz. Jaspal Singh and Amar Nath. Termination of their services by the Management had led to raising of industrial dispute by them and thereafter, references were made to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. As violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) was found, these references were answered in favour of the workmen and reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of their respective notices till their reinstatement, was ordered. Civil Writ Petitions preferred by the appellant -Management challenging the Awards dated 12.8.1998 and 3.12.1998 in respect of workmen, namely, Jaspal Singh and Amar Nath were also dismissed vide impugned judgment of 26.4.2012 of Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court.

(2.) PLEA of the Management in both these appeals is that the workmen had never been employed by it for 240 days or more in a year preceding the date of termination of their services. Impugning findings of the Labour Court as also of Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, it is claimed that there is no evidence on behalf of the workmen on this count. By way of alternative plea, it is also averred that when the workmen had not worked, then no back wages should have been ordered for them and instead compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service, was the only alternative. It is claimed that when length of engagement as daily wager has not been so long, reinstatement should not have followed and rather compensation should have been directed to be paid.

(3.) IT may be noticed that when Extra Assistant Engineer Yash Pal Sahni had appeared before the Labour Court, he had undertaken to produce muster roll from 1989 to 1994 to prove that workman Jaspal Singh had been taken on the rolls only for seasonal work for 2 -3 months in rainy season and had not been in their employment for long. When muster roll was not produced pursuant to undertaking of this witness, adverse inference was drawn by the Labour Court as also by the Single Bench of this Court for withholding of best evident by the Management. Similar conclusion was drawn in the case of workman Amar Nath. This concurrent finding of fact now cannot be questioned in these appeals.