LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-580

NARESH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Decided On July 16, 2014
NARESH Appellant
V/S
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P3) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak whereby the reference has been decided against the workman and he has not been held entitled to any relief.

(2.) A perusal of the claim statement of the workman would go on to show that he worked from 01.12.1982 to 29.10.2000 as Baildar on daily wage basis and details of having worked under various officers of the respondent- Department, was given. The case of the workman was that from 30.10.2000, he went for duty time and again but he was not taken back and therefore, there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). It was also pleaded that junior workman, namely Narender, Raju, Maman, Krishan and Anand Singh, had been taken on duty whereas the petitioner had been discriminated against. The respondent-Department filed large number of objections and took the plea that the demand notice was being served after more than 3 years of the alleged termination and held that record of attendance of the daily wager was weeded out by the Divisional Forest Officer after 3 years by virtue of Rule 15.24 of Haryana Forest Manual and therefore, it had become common tendency amongst daily wagers to send a demand notice after the lapse of 3 years. It was admitted that the workman had worked from 1985 to February, 1995 but with heavy breaks and it was alleged that in May, 1985, he had worked for 30 days and for 21 days in the month of September, 1985. Similarly, for February, 1987, he had worked for 24 days and for April, 1987, he had worked for 17 days and for July, 1994, the petitioner had worked for 31 days. He had also worked for 18 days in September, 1994 and for 31 days in October, 1994 and lastly, for 28 days in February, 1995. It was the case of the Department categorically that he left the job in February, 1995 and never came back and neither had made any request/representation for re-engagement to the competent authority. The factum of the junior persons working with the respondent-Department was also denied and it was alleged that there was no violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act.

(3.) After examining the statement of the workman as WW1 and WW2, Naresh Kumar, Forester, who had been summoned as witness of the petitionerworkman, the Labour Court also took into consideration the statement of MW1, Shamsher Singh, Range Forest Officer and MW2, Ishwar Singh, Forest Guard. The Labour Court came to the opinion that the submission of the authorized representative that the entire record had not been produced and therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondent-Department was rejected and it was held that the onus was upon the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days, preceding his termination of service, in the last calendar year and merely the statement was not sufficient to prove the said fact. The statement of the workman that the persons junior to him were employed, was rejected since the date of appointment was not mentioned and therefore, nothing could be proved that they were his juniors and therefore, Section 25-G was not attracted.