NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed, challenging the award dated 3.112009 (Annexure P2), whereby the Labour Court, Patiala has awarded a sum of Rs. 35,000 as compensation Instead of directing reinstatement A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the workman, in his demand notice dated 15.09.2001, took the plea that he was engaged by the respondent-Department on 01.07.1995 and he worked upto 10.09.2001 and that his services were terminated w.e.f. 11.09.2001, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). His monthly wages, at that point of time, was Rs. 1800 per month and juniors to him were retained and accordingly, he claimed reinstatement.

(2.) The plea of the State was that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis and he had not completed 240 days of continuous service, preceding 12 months of his termination of service. He was employed during the planting season, according to the requirement of work.

(3.) The workman examined himself as WW1, Niranjan Singh and deposed regarding his claim and produced on record, proof of, wages through cheques and copy of his saving passbook. On the other hand, the Department produced Harpal Singh as MW1, Block Forest Officer, who deposed that the workman had not completed 240 days, preceding his termination. A finding was recorded that though the workman was engaged only provisionally, no objection was raised, at any point of time, by the respondent-Department, as to the genuineness of the said cheques and whether the same were deposited in the bank and it would be clear that the workman had worked from 1995 onwards, with Intermittent breaks. The Department had not clarified as to how long the workman worked with the respondent-Department and no reliable evidence was laid to prove the facts that he had not completed 240 days of service, during the last preceding year. Consequently, an adverse inference was drawn against the Department and a finding was recorded that the workman had completed 240 days in the last preceding year, before the date of his termination of service and that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act. However, reinstatement was denied on account of the fact that he was a dairy wager and had lastly worked in September, 2001, whereas the award was passed 8 years later, in the year 2009 and accordingly, compensation of Rs. 35000 was directed to be paid by the respondent-Department