DIRECTOR STATE TRANSPORT, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Vs. BALWINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed against judgment dated April 24, 2001, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 15912 of 1999, vide which award dated March 15, 1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court was set aside and the respondent-workman was re-instated with continuity in service and 75% back wages from the date of demand notice. Whereas the Labour Court held that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in service in twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination and thus vide order dated March 15, 1999, answered the reference against the workman, the learned Single Judge reversed the finding of the Labour Court with the result already indicated above.

(2.) The only question that has been raised in this case and on which there is a debate by learned counsel representing the parties naturally pertains to the service period of the workman in twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination. Whereas it has been the case of the workman that he was first appointed at Moga depot on October 20, 1986 and continued at the said depot upto January 31, 1987 and thereafter he was appointed at Muktsar depot on February 1, 1987, where he remained upto January 15, 1988, the case of the appellant-State was that the workman was employed on May 15, 1987 and his services were terminated on December 11, 1987. The learned Single Judge, while reversing the finding of the Labour Court on crucial issue, as mentioned above, relied upon the statement of Hari Chand (WW1), who deposed that the workman was issued duty slips for obtaining spare parts from the store on December 12, 1987, December 17, 1987, December 28, 1987, December 29, 1987, December 30, 1987, January 8, 1988, January 9, 1988, January 11, 1988 and January 12, 1998. On the basis of deposition of WW1, the learned Single Judge had drawn a conclusion that the respondent worked in the months of December, 1987, and January, 1988 and atleast upto January 12, 1988. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the statement made by Munshi Ram, Clerk of the appellants-Department, who was examined as MW1. He had produced the details of the service of the workman at Ex. M1, according to which, the total working days of the workman came to be 180 from May 15, 1987 to December 11, 1987. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the statement of the workman, who had deposed that he had worked at Muktsar from February 1, 1987 to January 15, 1988. The appellants-Department were in a position to substantiate their plea by way of documentary evidence, yet no records were produced before the Labour Court.

(3.) While drawing adverse inference, the learned Single Judge also relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Krishanji Ketkar v. Mohmed Haji Latif, 1968 AIR(SC) 1413. In the manner aforesaid, if the service period of the workman at Muktsar was to be excluded, the workman would have still completed 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination.